Modified Olympus vs Panasonic and image stabilization

[igoriginal]

On second thought, Andrea, why stop there? Just buy yourself the Hasselblad H5D-60 ("can I get a second mortgage, please?"), and have it full-spectrum converted. No need for additional surgery beyond the basic quartz-glass installation, with such a crazy light-gathering sensor and impeccable resolution. Your outstanding "sensitivity" would come by default. :D

 

EDIT: Ok, I can now pinch myself and stop fantasizing ... even when it comes to other people's cameras.

[Andrea B.]

??

[igoriginal]

What do you mean, "??"

[Andrea B.]

Wondering what a medium format 60mp ccd hassie has to do with monochrome UV?

 

Akshully u can get a 50mp Canon 5DS which would prolly make a better UV conversion on all counts.

[igoriginal]

Wondering what a medium format 60mp ccd hassie has to do with monochrome UV?

 

Akshully u can get a 50mp Canon 5DS which would prolly make a better UV conversion on all counts.

 

My point (although expressed through sarcasm and jest) was that larger-format sensors (even larger than Full-Frame) tend to have a substantially higher dynamic range / wider EV-range, and preserve much greater detail even at ridiculously higher ISO settings. Therefore, making them the ultimate full-spectrum tools, so that having such a system additionally de-bayered for yet more sensitivity may become less necessary or perhaps even moot. That's what I was trying to convey; if bumping up the ISO is all it takes to reach sufficient hand-holding shutter speed, while still allowing for high-quality images, then this would render any additional sensor surgery unnecessary. A significantly larger sensor is already more sensitive to light, by many factors.

 

Oh, by the way, concerning your note pertaining to the Canon 5DS as a full-spectrum tool - I was told not long ago by an associate of mine that someone had their Pentax 645Z full-spectrum-modified, and it turned out to be the most robust and favorable full-spectrum-conversion they have ever worked with. Whether that statement is truthful, I do not know, but I found it fascinating. It's definitely a more cost-effective Medium-Format alternative, compared to Hasselblad. That, and I am not well-educated enough to know what would be the differences (as well as the pros and cons) of a conversion involving a CCD sensor, versus a CMOS sensor. (Hasselblad uses CCD sensors on their MF systems, no? Whereas Pentax uses CMOS sensors on their MF systems.) Does anyone know or care to explain how these chief differences in sensor technology would lead to functional differences of a full-spectrum conversion? I'm curious.

[Andrea B.]

Zeiss used to make a UV lens for Hasselblad MF called the UV-Sonnar. That lens now Ebays for strictly collector's prices of $24-28K. Pretty crazy - even for me!!!

[Alex H]

I was told not long ago by an associate of mine that someone had their Pentax 645Z full-spectrum-modified, and it turned out to be the most robust and favorable full-spectrum-conversion they have ever worked with.

 

Here you go: Pentax launches limited-circulation 645Z IR, an infrared version of its medium format camera

 

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9966439386/pentax-launches-limited-circulation-645z-ir-infrared

[Andrea B.]

Thanks, Alex. You know how much we love references and links!!

 

The write-up says that the internal filter has been removed for IR shooting. Presumably (?) this also means that the 645 could be used for UV.

 

I don't think I myself fully understand the nuances between medium format and 24x35 in the digital sense. We'd have to get into the usual discussion of pixel size & density, etc.

 

But finding a UV-capable lens for MF might be difficult. Brian Caldwell designed an MF UV/IR lens, so there is at least one. This would be the 120mm f/4.5 UV/IR Macro Apochromat which looks absolutely gorgeous. I've never priced it, of course.

[Alex H]

The write-up says that the internal filter has been removed for IR shooting. Presumably (?) this also means that the 645 could be used for UV.

 

Presumably. They do not mention installing any other filter instead of ICF. They also say that autofocus will no longer work on modified camera - another confirmation of not putting any glass to replace ICF and restore back-focus distance.

 

We are drifting off-topic...

[igoriginal]

All of this excitement surrounding this camera is for spite, however. Because note in the release notes, where it states: "Sadly, the new model is not intended for public consumption, but will be aimed at museums and scientific establishments who will have to sign a usage agreement before they can make a purchase."

 

In short, look elsewhere, oh ye plebeian masses. :(

 

So ... it goes right back to buying your own 645Z, and getting it modified through a conversion service.

[Alex H]

I work at the museum.

[igoriginal]

But finding a UV-capable lens for MF might be difficult.

 

Not necessarily. I believe there to be at least a handful of lower-budget MF lenses out there (with simple optical formulas), which were originally designed for the Kalimar Reflex Medium-Format camera (circa 1957). These lenses were contracted to be manufactured by Fujita.

 

Here are photo examples, below, of the wide-angle medium-format Fujita-made Kaligar H.C. 52mm F/3.5. It's of a late-50's design (to coincide with the release of the 1957 Kaligar Reflex camera), and involves a simple optical formula and preset-aperture.

 

 

 

 

The reason that I strongly suspect these to be UV-transmissive (if only as "accidentals"), is because I have Fujita-made late-50's lenses of the same build, but for FF film bodies instead. But their optical formulas are essentially similar (if not identical). And I can confirm that all (if not most) of the late-50's Full-Frame Fujitas transmit UV to satisfactory (workable) levels, at the very least. Now, precise transmission depth, however, I cannot vouch for yet ... since I haven't done extensive tests yet.

 

Here, also, is a "group portrait' of the entire Kaligar-branded line of MF lenses for the Kalimar Reflex MF body. So, you can see that there are also other focal lengths to seek out.

 

 

Nonetheless, given that the Medium-Format Fujita-made Kaligar lenses pop up on Ebay from time to time, and for bargain prices, these are worthwhile directions to experiment with, concerning UV-capable lenses for Medium-Format converted cameras ... as acquiring these lenses will not break the bank (relatively speaking).

 

Here's an example of a recent Ebay sale (although now over):

 

http://www.ebay.com/...=p2047675.l2557

 

(NOTE: Special attention to the fact that the lenses are labeled as "Kaligar" [with a g], whereas the body is named as "Kalimar" [with an m]. This is very important to keep in mind, when doing Ebay searches or otherwise. There are also many other Kaligar and Kalimar-branded lenses which came later, but are NOT of the same era or design. So, taking great care to not confuse those with the late-50's Fujita-made builds. The "FT" at the start of the serial number is what to look for.)

 

I cannot personally guarantee anything, here, but I strongly suspect to be right (based on my experiences with late-50's FT-made Kaligars for FF film bodies.) Maybe I'll start keeping an eye out, and nab one of those MF versions for myself, so I can appease my own suspicions. ;)

[igoriginal]

Here, I just found an Ebay sale of the Fujita-made Kaligar P.C. 150mm F/4, which belonged to the original set of lenses made for the Kalimar Reflex MF body (as noted in the group photo I supplied above). This one doesn't have the "FT" in the serial number, but not all Fujita-made lenses do. (Confusing, isn't it? Haha.)

 

http://www.ebay.com/...MYAAOSwAYtWHy~8

 

I am not sure about the 150, though. I have no experience with it at all, but at that price ... hmmm ...

 

(It should also be noted that these early MF lenses for the Kalimar Reflex body used a 44mm-thread mount. Not the same exact thread-pitch as the Miranda 44mm thread, but close enough so that if one uses a Miranda adapter for their camera, they could screw this lens in at least part of the way without stripping the threading. There's always room for easy modification, when lenses use simple threads for their mounting.)

 

Now, here is another 150 on sale, that does have the "FT" in the serial number. I think they are the same lens, though (with just cosmetic differences and years of issuing).

 

http://www.ebay.com/...UEAAOxyOMdS3EsQ

 

What to do, what to do. Yikes. No WONDER I'm always broke.

[Andrea B.]

I am my own Scientific Establishment.

[igoriginal]

I am my own Scientific Establishment.

 

Hah! Good one, Andrea! :lol: :lol: (You had me in stitches, with belly-busting laughter, from that remark.)

 

Then again, most of us here are self-made scientists ... given what we do with our equipment, which includes some of our rather "unorthodox" approaches, as opposed to " normal" photography.

 

So, notwithstanding that Alex works at the museum ... what about the rest of us? Are you saying that we don't really need to supply any sort of formal (institutionally-official) documentation, to get our hands on that 645Z? It's enough to just say that you're going to use it for "scientific work?" ;)

 

(I don't want to have to search for a position of employment at a museum, nor step over dead bodies at a crime scene, just to get myself that camera. Then again, if I actually fork out the money for that piece, my wife just may turn me into a crime scene.)

[Alex H]

It depends what their usage agreement says, and it can be different in different countries.

[renaud]

All of this excitement surrounding this camera is for spite, however. Because note in the release notes, where it states: "Sadly, the new model is not intended for public consumption, but will be aimed at museums and scientific establishments who will have to sign a usage agreement before they can make a purchase."

 

A few years ago, the Fuji IS-Pro was released with similar limitations (I can't remember how similar, but it was mostly targeted towards law enforcement and forensics), yet many ended in amateur photographer's hands (including mine). I had to fill some forms describing the planned use, which was very obviously not forensics, and yet I was cleared to obtain this highly sensitive hardware :). So there is hope... for the wealthiest among us at least.

[Andrea B.]

Unless someone convinces me that my little posies will look much, much better in medium format UV, then I think I do not have any particular craving for the Pentax 645 either in its standard version or its IR version. Although I do have a natural curiosity about what it might be like to shoot MF. Should that ever 'take hold' of me, I'll rent one for a week or so and see what it is all about. :D

 

Lens Rentals here in the US will rent a 645D for $179 for 4 days and a 645Z for $249 for 4 days. You'd have to also rent a lens, of course. At least I would as I don't think I have anything which would work on MF.

 

I will say that I have always thought Pentax made excellent equipment, and I'm not sure why it is not more popular. Their digital K5 is a great little cam. I modded one for full spec. It's quite nice. Long time past I ha d a Pentax film body but never did much with it and then digital came along.

 

I do not fully understand the restrictions about the Z-IR or the older IS-Pro. Sometime when I have little else to do (!), I'll call Pentax or Fuji and ask about that.

[lost cat]

A few years ago, the Fuji IS-Pro was released with similar limitations (I can't remember how similar, but it was mostly targeted towards law enforcement and forensics), yet many ended in amateur photographer's hands (including mine). I had to fill some forms describing the planned use, which was very obviously not forensics, and yet I was cleared to obtain this highly sensitive hardware :). So there is hope... for the wealthiest among us at least.

 

I'd guess the forms were done to make sure the purchaser understood the camera lacked an internal ICF and wasn't going to return the camera when their family holiday photos came out looking funny.

[Andy Perrin]

(I am catching up on recent forum activity and this thread almost made me spit my drInk. Especially when Alex said he works at the museum. :))

[Alex H]

What's wrong with working at the museum. I am not the only UVP member who has this type of job.

[Andy Perrin]

Oh goodness, there is nothing at all wrong with museum work and that was not the implication there! I laughed because Igoriginal said so confidently that the camera is not available, and then you replied to the contrary with the timing of a good joke punchline. (And iggy should not be upset either — it was a reasonable deduction from the data at first glance.)

[Alex H]

Well, I would not want you to mess up your computer by spitting your drink on it after reading my comments.

[igoriginal]

No offense taken at all, Andy. I've just been quietly reading from the side-lines, here, and giggling under my breath, too.