Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Modified Olympus vs Panasonic and image stabilization


lost cat

Recommended Posts

Several members here including myself are making the transition from DSLR to micro 4/3 I was wondering about image stabilization and how modifying a camera for full spectrum might affect this feature. Since Panasonic has IS in the lens this may not be an issue, however since Olympus and Sony cameras have this feature in the body would going full spectrum disable or impede the IS? If not would going with an Olympus or Sony body yield IS even with vintage UV capable lenses?

 

For those with Panasonic cameras and have used OIS equipped lenses for UV imaging has this feature worked?

Link to comment

Since Panasonic has IS in the lens this may not be an issue, however since Olympus and Sony cameras have this feature in the body would going full spectrum disable or impede the IS?

 

Only if you break something or short some circuitry.

Link to comment
I'm using a panasonic GX7 (with in-camera IS) and it works normally. It may make the conversion more difficult (I didn't do it myself) since the sensor is on a mobile support, but IS function doesn't seem to be affected. The replacement filter being part of the mobile sensor assembly, there may be an effect on IS if the weight is too different from the original one, but I haven't noticed this (I haven't tested IS very thoroughly though).
Link to comment
enricosavazzi

One of my converted cameras is an Olympus E-PM2 with image stabilization. As long as this filter is properly replaced and the thickness and weight of the replacement window are similar to the original ones, there is no intrinsic damage to the IS system and no change in its function.

 

My experience with this camera and conversions: http://savazzi.net/photography/e-pm2.html

Link to comment

Might it also be mentioned that if one is doing a UV-floral photo with the camera mounted on a tripod, with either remote-shutter release or shutter-on-a-timer release ... so that there are no human hands on the camera ... then I.S. becomes moot, anyway?

 

Even so, I have been shooting with both - Panasonic and Olympus full-spectrum bodies - and I do not notice a difference one way or the other. I think at the end of the day, the most important factors regarding UV-photo composition are image quality, retaining highlight / shadow detail to the best of one's ability (so that they are not clipped), and keeping ISO noise well-managed. Whereas, I.S. has not really been an important factor for me, when it comes to UV-photography (given the fact that the majority of the subjects that one will be shooting in UV will not be action scenes and/or with the camera being moved around constantly in order to keep the subject within the frame).

 

Am I wrong about this? I've just never even given this a second though, truthfully, nor have I really seen any advantage nor disadvantage between a full-spectrum Panasonic versus an Olympus, in terms of I.S. (or even a lack of I.S., altogether).

 

Now, maybe with a significantly FASTER lens (F/1.8 or brighter) that transmits ample UV, and using it to either shoot constantly-moving subjects (or perhaps even in an attempt to shoot UV movies) thus necessitating the requirement to keep tracking the subjects so that they remain within the frame, this might then become a more valid consideration?

Link to comment

Best place to find out information about how conversion affects stabilization or dust shakers is on Life Pixel or Kolari or MaxMax websites. They typically mention what might change after conversion. And all will answer questions if you call them or email them.

 

On long UV exposures, hand-held, stabilization can often cause blur. And of course it has to be turned off when on tripod. But for UV short exposures - if there is such a thing - stabilization might be useful.

 

The key choice for good UV exposures - given their inherent darkness, wide dynamic range for some subjects and typically long exposures - is to choose the best sensor you can afford. Usually this implies a Nikon, Sony or Pentax body.

Link to comment

Y

Might it also be mentioned that if one is doing a UV-floral photo with the camera mounted on a tripod, with either remote-shutter release or shutter-on-a-timer release ... so that there are no human hands on the camera ... then I.S. becomes moot, anyway?

 

Even so, I have been shooting with both - Panasonic and Olympus full-spectrum bodies - and I do not notice a difference one way or the other. I think at the end of the day, the most important factors regarding UV-photo composition are image quality, retaining highlight / shadow detail to the best of one's ability (so that they are not clipped), and keeping ISO noise well-managed. Whereas, I.S. has not really been an important factor for me, when it comes to UV-photography (given the fact that the majority of the subjects that one will be shooting in UV will not be action scenes and/or with the camera being moved around constantly in order to keep the subject within the frame).

 

Am I wrong about this? I've just never even given this a second though, truthfully, nor have I really seen any advantage nor disadvantage between a full-spectrum Panasonic versus an Olympus, in terms of I.S. (or even a lack of I.S., altogether).

 

Now, maybe with a significantly FASTER lens (F/1.8 or brighter) that transmits ample UV, and using it to either shoot constantly-moving subjects (or perhaps even in an attempt to shoot UV movies) thus necessitating the requirement to keep tracking the subjects so that they remain within the frame, this might then become a more valid consideration?

 

I am curious about the possibility of UV movies as shown on the Nivia commercial. I ran across a description of how a Canon 60D was modified for such a video. The microlenses and CFA were shaved off, kind of an extreme solution.

 

 

Looks like a standard Canon lens may have been used for the video. Odd choice since Canon seems to be the least UV capable brand out there. I like the idea of UV videos but not so much if the sensor needs a shave to do it.

Link to comment

I like the idea of UV videos but not so much if the sensor needs a shave to do it.

 

I am perplexed as to why the sensor would ever require any drastic surgery, in order to create UV movies? I've been able to find some faster UV-capable lenses for my Micro-4/3 cameras (such as the Wollensak Velostigmat 25mm F/1.5), which allows me to shoot UV movies at lower ISO settings, and no problems whatsoever. The F/1.5 maximum aperture, of course, is what has been instrumental in hand-held UV photo and movie-taking.

 

Heck, I've even been able to shoot some usable UV movies with a UV-capable 55mm F/2.8 Tessar-based lens (4 elements / 3 groups), at wide-open aperture, and the ISO bumped up to about 3200 or 6400 for hand-held shots (on my full-spectrum-modified Pentax K-01, which is a mirrorless and stripped-down versus of the Pentax K-5 DSLR), and still obtain reasonable results. (That sensor inside the Pentax K-01 and K-5 is the same exact Sony sensor used on the Nikon D7000 and Sony A55. And at the time of its release, it was rated as the best APS-C format sensor on the market, delivering usable images even at ISO's in excess of 12,800!)

 

Hence, I do not see the reason for butchering a sensor for shooting UV movies, any further than replacing its UV/IR-block window with the clear-glass quartz window, which of course is the default for a full-spectrum conversion.

 

Indeed, like you, I too fail to see the logic of trifling with a sensor to such an extreme degree, just to shoot UV movies or take hand-held UV photos. Am I missing something, here???

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

EDIT / UPDATE: On second thought, I'd have to admit that perhaps the removal of additional materials and/or layers from the "sensor sandwich" ... with the intentions of greatly improving UV-sensitivity even further ... would enable a UV-movie project to reach the utmost quality in movie-making (best-possible image quality, least amount of noise, fastest frame-rates, etc.)

 

So, perhaps for the most professionally-demanding of works, this could be justified?

 

Still, if it were up to me ... I'd search for other ways to "squeeze out" additional UV-sensitivity, because unlike the movie project which you linked to above (which is quite impressive, I must say), I would rather retain the ability to derive those "UV-colors" recorded by a sensor which still has its deeper components fully intact, if that means a trade-off for obtaining a less-than-perfect image and/or movie as the compromise. Meaning, I would rather shoot a "UV-color"-enabled movie at less than perfect image quality, as opposed to shooting a monochrome-only UV movie at higher image quality. But that's just my own taste, of course.

 

Picture this: A UV movie of a field of sunflowers blowing in the wind. I'd like to still see some color on the tips of those flower petals, in additional to those dark UV nectar guides. That's just one example, of many, demonstrating how my preference would be to retain UV-color capability when shooting a UV movie.

 

Granted, I understand that those "UV colors" are faux colors, determined by preference of white-balancing schemes. But my preference remains as thus. Monochrome UV seems like an awful waste of artistic interpretation, by any measure of my own tastes. This is because one of the primary motivations behind why I got to finally dive into the field of full-spectrum camera modification was due to the surreal colors which can be recorded through such imaging.

Link to comment
My Panasonic GH-2 with a glass replacement of the ICF and say a Coastal 60 or Noflexar 35 easily allows hand-held UV video through the regular Baader U (Venus) filter. If the w/b is set against a UV neutral target beforehand, the video footage comes out with no further need of colour massaging.
Link to comment

I am perplexed as to why the sensor would ever require any drastic surgery, in order to create UV movies? I've been able to find some faster UV-capable lenses for my Micro-4/3 cameras (such as the Wollensak Velostigmat 25mm F/1.5), which allows me to shoot UV movies at lower ISO settings, and no problems whatsoever. The F/1.5 maximum aperture, of course, is what has been instrumental in hand-held UV photo and movie-taking.

 

Heck, I've even been able to shoot some usable UV movies with a UV-capable 55mm F/2.8 Tessar-based lens (4 elements / 3 groups), at wide-open aperture, and the ISO bumped up to about 3200 or 6400 for hand-held shots (on my full-spectrum-modified Pentax K-01, which is a mirrorless and stripped-down versus of the Pentax K-5 DSLR), and still obtain reasonable results. (That sensor inside the Pentax K-01 and K-5 is the same exact Sony sensor used on the Nikon D7000 and Sony A55. And at the time of its release, it was rated as the best APS-C format sensor on the market, delivering usable images even at ISO's in excess of 12,800!)

 

Hence, I do not see the reason for butchering a sensor for shooting UV movies, any further than replacing its UV/IR-block window with the clear-glass quartz window, which of course is the default for a full-spectrum conversion.

 

Indeed, like you, I too fail to see the logic of trifling with a sensor to such an extreme degree, just to shoot UV movies or take hand-held UV photos. Am I missing something, here???

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

EDIT / UPDATE: On second thought, I'd have to admit that perhaps the removal of additional materials and/or layers from the "sensor sandwich" ... with the intentions of greatly improving UV-sensitivity even further ... would enable a UV-movie project to reach the utmost quality in movie-making (best-possible image quality, least amount of noise, fastest frame-rates, etc.)

 

So, perhaps for the most professionally-demanding of works, this could be justified?

 

 

Well according to the expert (posted near the bottom of the comments section) Removing the CFA and microlenses increases sensitivity by about 6x in the UV, about 2X in visible, but it is a net loss in the IR because the CFA is open past 800nm and the microlenses increases sensitivity.

 

So is it worth the surgery to gain a 6x sensitivity in the UV? Especially when combined with a standard, presumably UV opaque Canon lens?

 

 

My Panasonic GH-2 with a glass replacement of the ICF and say a Coastal 60 or Noflexar 35 easily allows hand-held UV video through the regular Baader U (Venus) filter. If the w/b is set against a UV neutral target beforehand, the video footage comes out with no further need of colour massaging.

 

Good to know, thanks!

Link to comment

So is it worth the surgery to gain a 6x sensitivity in the UV? Especially when combined with a standard, presumably UV opaque Canon lens?

 

Or you can increase ISO by 2.5 stops. Debayering the camera is a tricky business, unless you can pay someone else to do it for you.

Link to comment

 

 

Or you can increase ISO by 2.5 stops. Debayering the camera is a tricky business, unless you can pay someone else to do it for you.

 

How hard can it be?

 

famous last words :)

 

Link to comment

So is it worth the surgery to gain a 6x sensitivity in the UV?

 

It's not worth it at all, when it comes to my preferences. Even if the surgery success was 100% guaranteed.

 

That's because - as stated earlier - one of the primary reasons I got into UV photography was because of the surreal, faux colors. Thus, what good is increasing sensitivity, if I end up with some permanently monochromatic / grey-scale UV image?

 

Not to mention, the other color-schemes one would be missing out on, such as interpretative / simulated "bee vision / butterfly vision", among others.

 

As far as I know, no creature has "black & white UV-only vision." (if there is such a creature, I feel sorry for it.)

 

So, what's the point? Strip away all color-producing capabilities, in exchange for more sensitivity? Thanks, but no thanks. As Alex H. already pointed out, there are other ways to increase sensitivity, but there is NO way to reverse a permanently-destroyed color-sensing component.

 

(For very specific types of scientific research, or forensics, or medical applications, I can see how increased sensitivity would take a priority over retaining color-interpretative capabilities. But the majority of us shoot UV-A images primarily for the artistic appeal. At least, I do. Thus, I'd be giving up on something vital to my own preferences, by having my sensor go through a non-reversible surgery to remove all color-sensing abilities.)

 

Like I said: Thanks, but no thanks. ;) (I'd no sooner rip out the color-sensing cone cells within my OWN eyes, let alone butcher my sensor for the same reason.)

Link to comment

The interesting question for me is exactly what is meant by 6x increase in UV sensitivity? Does this mean that our UV exposures would be shorter? Or does it mean that our UV exposures might "go deeper"?

 

I am thinking that it means the former - that UV exposure time is cut shorter - because to record closer to 300nm would require some kind of UV illumination that is not easily available in abundant amounts.

 

(And, of course, my always vigilant protect-the-website self notes that closer to 300nm is more dangerous, but you all know this already.)

 

I am very tempted to try at least one time - before My Life in UV is over - one of the modified monochrome UV cams. Dan from MaxMax seems to have developed a technique for such a conversion which involves scraping mere microns of depth off the original sensor pack to rid it of those pesky microlenses and colour filter array. I'm just not sure whether I would send a newer, better sensor-ed cam for the monochrome conversion or send in one of my unused older bodies like the D300.

 

After going to the expense of making a UV monochrome camera, methinks it would be meaningful to use one of the best UV-capable lenses with it. This does not require that 5K-7K be forked over for "real" UV lenses, but it does mean being vigilant about looking for one of the good Ebay lenses listed in our Stickies.

 

Like Igor, I enjoy the false colour in our UV images. However, I am also a fan of good B&W images. Monochrome photography is a lovely and artistic medium in the right hands. So I can see some interesting artistic uses for a mono UV cam.

 

Well, we shall see........

 

**************

 

Jim - how hard can it be? IMHO, very, very hard.

Let someone do this who has the machinery and technique to do it properly else you will wind up with quite a messed up sensor.

Link to comment

 

As far as I know, no creature has "black & white UV-only vision." (if there is such a creature, I feel sorry for it.)

 

 

Well to be fair human have some of the best color perception around. Most animals have to get by with far less, if they have eyes at all.

 

Still there's room for improvement Birds are tetrachromatic - Red Green Blue UV and some birds of prey have much sharper eyesight than us.

 

http://nautil.us/issue/11/light/how-animals-see-the-world

 

We know humans can develop tetrachromatic vision but not to the UV...not yet anyway!

Link to comment

The interesting question for me is exactly what is meant by 6x increase in UV sensitivity? Does this mean that our UV exposures would be shorter? Or does it mean that our UV exposures might "go deeper"?

 

I am thinking that it means the former - that UV exposure time is cut shorter - because to record closer to 300nm would require some kind of UV illumination that is not easily available in abundant amounts.

 

I know, I know – it has been so long ago: http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/758-sony-nex-5n-monochrom-conversion-results/

Link to comment

Alex, thank you!!

We had that 6X right there in your post - and had it exactly as it happens.

 

The monochrome UV-Sony shot UV at 1/10 second and the colour UV-Sony shot at 6/10 second. :D

Link to comment

Jim - how hard can it be? IMHO, very, very hard.

Let someone do this who has the machinery and technique to do it properly else you will wind up with quite a messed up sensor.

 

Yes Andrea, I was being tongue in cheek.

 

"How hard can it be?" is right up there with "Hey guys, watch this!" as a prelude to something unfortunate.

Link to comment
enricosavazzi

I think I have seen somewhere on the web the spectral sensitivity of sensors with, versus without, microlenses. We are talking here of monochrome sensors optionally equipped with microlenses as one of the last stages of manufacturing, not homemade conversions. DeBayering removes the microlenses as well, so the result of deBayering, in the best case, is essentially a monochrome sensor without microlenses.

 

As far as I remember, the spectral response with microlenses had a rounded peak centered in the VIS. The same sensor without microlenses had a much flatter response with wider "wings" and a lower central VIS peak. In practice, NUV and NIR sensitivity was slightly enhanced, but VIS sensitivity was lower than with microlenses. This is probably because microlenses are optimized to concentrate VIS radiation on the photosite directly underneath.

Link to comment

Like Igor, I enjoy the false colour in our UV images. However, I am also a fan of good B&W images. Monochrome photography is a lovely and artistic medium in the right hands. So I can see some interesting artistic uses for a mono UV cam.

 

Ahhh, but there's the rub. One does not need to go through the trouble of tearing a sensor apart to get into the appeal of black & white photography. One can satisfy their "B&W fix" to as great of an indulgence as they could ever desire, with even a stock (unconverted) camera.

 

Hence, I don't need a de-bayered digital camera to indulge in thus. Heck, I don't even need a digital camera. I can go back to my analog roots. :D (I come from a family of self-sufficient photographers who have even built their own home-based darkrooms, mixed their own chemicals, and developed their own black-and-white film. Thus, I appreciate B&W photography as much as the next die-hard enthusiast.)

 

So ... why do I need to turn an otherwise highly-dynamic, color-capable, full-spectrum camera (which gives me the greatest spectral-bandwidth flexibility of all, by the way, and retains the widest color-interpretative capabilities at the same time), into yet another monochrome output device?

 

Besides that, it should be mentioned that near-IR black-and-white images are far more appealing (in my opinion), compared to monochrome UV, given their higher contrast, elimination of haziness, and resulting "pop" / "punch." And yet, one can do NIR B&W with a non-destructive process, through choice of filter placed in front of the lens, rather than permanently removing all color-capability from the sensor itself.

 

But ... I digress. It all comes down to preferences, in the end. I just personally do not see the logic in the expense/trouble versus the reward, of tearing a sensor down to do monochrome UV. Unless, as stated earlier, the increased sensitivity (for purely scientific research or forensics work) takes a priority over artistic appeal.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

EDIT / UPDATE: By the way, I failed to also mention that one can still do monochrome-UV photos with a full-spectrum camera, without non-reversible surgery to the sensor. They can convert the resulting UV-color image into B&W, via editor or in-camera processing. Simple as that. :lol: (Differences in sensitivity - as in, exposure time - is the only key difference between a color-retained full-spectrum camera versus monochrome full-spectrum camera. Well ... aside from the fact that the transmission curves do become somewhat altered, per Enrico's point).

Link to comment

Well to be fair human have some of the best color perception around.

 

You mean a greater portion of the primate order, and not just primates belonging to Homo sapiens. We're nothing special, in particular, compared to a good portion of the rest of our primate order ... when it comes to color-sense. (Not the last time I have read on the matter, anyway.)

 

In fact (unless I am indeed mistaken), my studies on such matters revealed that many primates' color-sense hasn't really changed much over the past 6 million years or so. Thus, just because some of us primates now drive BMW's, wear a three-piece suit, or work in a snazzy and posh high-rise office, doesn't mean our vision has changed much from the majority of the rest of our primate brethren. :D

 

NOTE: Though there are some notable exceptions, of course. For instance, within some genera of New World monkeys belonging to the 'Aotidae' family, also referred to as "night monkeys", which exhibit a color-vision with a more "relaxed" color-saturation-sensing ability, given their predominantly nocturnal periods of activity. In other words, selective evolutionary stressors - or rather, a lack of them, in this case - have led to a reduced priority in color-saturation sense.

 

Then, on the other extreme end of anomalous exceptions to the primate order, is genus 'Alouatta' ("howler monkeys"), whereupon recent studies appear to demonstrate that some of the species belonging to this genus are in fact tetrachromats in the making.

 

Otherwise, of course, many New World Monkeys are generally dichromats.

 

But, here, I am primarily talking about the lineages of apes (not New World monkeys), which humans have descended from. Meaning that humans, apes, and nearly the rest of the Old World monkeys are trichromats. So, yes, I suppose you can say that primate vision is unique and quite advanced, even compared with the rest of the majority of Mammalia. I agree.

Link to comment
Well actually I was thinking of going with the Leica Monochrom. Thus no sensor grinding, etc.
Link to comment

Well actually I was thinking of going with the Leica Monochrom. Thus no sensor grinding, etc.

 

No. But your wallet is going to take quite a grinding, though. :P

 

Oh, well. I suppose we all have our indulgences. I have mine, too. I'm just not the person to take out a second car loan, just to buy a camera. LOL.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...