Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Micro4/3 (MFT) sensors good for debayering mod?


Dmitry

Recommended Posts

Dmitry, I'm going to give your question its own topic rather than let it grow stale at the end of a two-year old topic where it originally was. I hope that this is OK?


 

And my answer to your question is that the m4/3 sensors have all been good for conversion into full spectrum or infrared cameras. You do have to take care that you avoid certain cameras which have an internal IR shutter monitor which can contaminate a reflected UV photograph. (I've added this to the Sticky.) So either Panasonic or Olympus m4/3 sensors in cameras which do not have that IR shutter monitor will be good for conversion.

 

As it is in "normal" visible photography, the better the sensor, then the better the photograph technically speaking. That is not to say that you can't make a good UV photograph with earlier sensors from 5-10 years ago, but it is a bit more difficult because of sensor noise and lack of dynamic range. With a little patience, you can find recent, good used cameras on Ebay or other resale sites.

 

I hope other members add their comments here, please. Which m4/3 sensor camera have you converted?

Link to comment

Many of us have an m4/3 conversion. I have a Lumix GH1.

Igor has a GF3. Birna has a GH2. Enrico has a G3. Klaus has a GH1.

Some of those might be retired now, because it has been a while since I've looked for what others are using.

Link to comment

Ok, since it separate topic I want to add - debayering mod :)

I seen topic on dpreview with GF1 mod, I seen lot of topics with other larger sensors mod but I not so brave to deal with naked golden wires.

 

There are plenty of used old MFT cameras for beginner under $50 to try. Any suggestions which are usable for debayering?

Link to comment
I have no input of suitable models, but it might be a good idea to also look for availability of cheap replacement sensors for the camera you chose, if you do not eventually get several cameras to replace the failed ones if you happen to break the first one.
Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

I too looked into this. From what I have found, if you do get the micro lenses off, the choice of coverlens is critical as back reflections can happen between the gold clean sensor layer and the coverglass.

Its easy to break things. Especially using the manual slow wood tool method.

Newer sensors use copper wiring, older sensors used aluminium wiring. Both react differently with some of the chemical methods people have developed.

 

I may just save up and get a company to do a conversion in the future.

Link to comment

From what I read in that forum link, the thought was the heat led to some effect, but the dyes weren't bleached out.

Any way you want to remove the coverglass and the microlenses, as its most likely the micro lenses that limit the uv detection below 350nm, due to their make up. In your link, they believed them to be acrylic for Canon sensors.

Also photobleaching if done completely can make the dyes opaque, which you definitely would not want. Would depend on their make up and if crosslinking occurs at the heat level and uv energy levels. Not all dyes go clear.

Link to comment

I would think that if bleaching the Bayer dyes could be done using UV,

then many of my converted cameras would have turned monochrome by now?

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

ah, I see. It was UV-C.

 

I think Dan Llewelyn (at MaxMax.com) also tried a bleaching technique, but unsuccessfully? He then perfected the grinding technique to remove the Bayer filter & microlenses. As I understand it you need a good precision micro-grinder to do this successfully.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...