Any Sony A7 Shooters Here?

[eye4invisible]

Hi All,

I'm considering jumping ship from my Nikon D3200 to a Sony mirrorless.

 

I want to use more of my vintage lenses in IR, UV and Vis, and the 46.5mm FFD is restricting me from using some of them (for example, my ISCO Ultra Star HD 55mm). That's the primary driver for moving to mirrorless.

 

Primary subjects would be landscapes, architecture, macro, and people (in that order) in IR/UV/Vis.

 

It looks like the A7 (in terms of cost vs features vs weather sealing) fits the bill. Not really interested in the A7R at 36 megapixels, since none of my lenses resolve to that (I'm looking to keep my Nikkor DX lenses, apart from the kit lens, and use them with an adapter).

 

I'll probably get it full spectrum converted by Kolari Vision. So, from an IR and UV perspective, does anyone have any input for:

• The ability to easily set a CWB in both spectrum bands (my D3200 is lousy at it. I read the methods at http://www.ultraviol...um-nikon-dslrs/ but the D3200 does not have CWB "slots" - you can either take a CWB sample, or use a photo, but using a photo usually doesn't have any apparent effect. No further tinkering is permitted within the camera).
  
• The quality of IR and UV video - how does it stack up against, say, a Lumix G camera?
  
• Is there a real advantage to having a full frame sensor for IR or UV photography? From ISO 800 upwards, my D3200's crop sensor has an (IMO) unacceptable amount of noise. I have read that full frame sensors generate less noise at higher ISOs than crop sensors, but does that also work under the same principle for non-visible light?
  

I'm not totally sold on the A7 at this point - perhaps a Panasonic or Olympus might be a good fit, too. I have a Pentax Q10 that I've been playing around with, but even with a super short FFD of 9mm or so, the small mount flange diameter, and tiny 12MP 5.4x crop sensor, it isn't conducive to being converted.

 

One last question on Kolari Vision: I got my D3200 converted by them about 3 years ago, before they offered the AR coating. This time around, from a UV perspective, is it worth having that done?

 

Thanks,

Andy

[dabateman]

I will vote for looking at the Olympus Em1. As it was cheap, got mine used for $400. The stock Em1 was sensitive to 370nm, so you can play with it while you save up for the conversion. It has 4 custom WB presents and can set WB presents.

I just got it back from Kolari, and its very sensitive to uv. I had the conversion done without AR coating, looking at their graphs I think it will block UV. I also had them not retain the dust shaking mechanism. I think that too will block uv. I asked for all the glass back. The dust shaking mechanism is 1mm thick and does have a coating on it. The sensor block is 3mm thick, 2mm clear glass and 1mm blue glass. Kind of looks like my bg39 or bg38 filter.

I have a lot of four thirds lenses. If you don't you may also want to look at an Em5mk2. I don't have experience with that camera, but it does have added features. And its also cheap.

 

For Sony, over the mk1 versions, there is an IR shutter monitor. So you will be just looking at A7, A7s and A7r. I have seen A7s cameras used for $700 and have been interested. A user here just got one back from Lifepixel. PM them to get an idea on handling.

Panasonic have IR shutter monitor sensors, So you should keep with Olympus.

Not to say Panasonic is a bad camera, I love the GM5, and want a G9, but for uv I think there will be problems. Panasonic also have very strong 405nm blocking. So you can use them for UVIF.

I don't know much about the Fuji's. The XT1, looks to be good and I wouldn't mine the monochrome one from MaxMax if I just find $2000. They are $500 to buy. But currently no AF uv capable lenses that I know of. For a Sony or Olympus, the Sigma 30mm f2.8 Art is good for uv.

Andrea owns a A7r, so you may want to PM her.

 

[eye4invisible]

Thanks for your input, dabateman.

 

Right now, it's a toss-up between the A7 and an OM-D E-M5 mk 2. The weather sealing of the Olympus looks good, but the only drawback, is the fact that it's a 2x crop sensor.

 

I'm equally into the art side of photography as much as the science side. If I go with the Olympus, I'm going to lose the outside of the image circle - more so than the 1.5x crop of my D3200 (which I'm probably going to have to sell to upgrade to mirrorless). Plus, as I mentioned, there's apparently less noise with full frame sensors.

 

I guess I'll have to sleep on this :)

[eye4invisible]

Also, I've never really been a fan of Lifepixel. I hear good and bad things about them (especially in the Facebook photography groups) but it's rare to hear a bad review of Kolari Vision. If I go with the A7, they will disable the dust shaker - not sure if they will actually remove it. I'll have to enquire if they can use quartz instead of optical glass.

 

Most of my non-Nikkor lenses are M42 mount (or I've converted them to be M42 or M52 for my focusing helicoids). There's a local camera chain here in Toronto (Henry's Photo) that has a special deal on an EM-5 mk II - I can get $600 off the Zuiko 14-150mm lens. That's quite tempting, as the other offer is an open box A7 with a 28-70mm FE lens. Both are a similar price.

[dabateman]

I forget you were in Toronto. I used to live there 10 years ago. Henry's used store next to the main one was awesome. I also remember downtown camera and Vistek all in kind of the same area. I got my Olympus E3 from Henry's.

One other option maybe to order directly from Kolari a converted camera or ask about ordering one from B&H or Amazon and have it sent there. That is if your going the new route. They were very responsive to my emails.

Another great conversion place on East Coast is Maxmax, LDP. They are also very responsive to questions. I am still trying to figure out if I can get a monochrome camera through them.

 

I actually like the extra depth of field and tend to shoot tight or with telephoto. So never had an issue, with the crop. But I do have a Pentacon six and Df cameras, when I want to go crazy.

[Andy Perrin]

I just got my A7S back from LifePixel. It’s really wonderful! I can go up as far as ISO52,000 or so and get usable photos (with adequate post processing). The Sony cams have no white balance issues at all in camera. I can set a UV white balance or an IR one in camera. There are three CWB slots. The native lens lineup is still a little weak but it’s filled out quite a bit over the last few years.

 

And yes, bigger pixels help no matter what kind of light. It’s just a question of surface area. My camera can shoot full spectrum photos at midnight by a dark lake at F/1.8 1/30” ISO12500. I still haven’t tested in UV alone yet so I don’t know how much it helps there, but I imagine it will be substantial.

 

St. John's Seminary, full spectrum, last night.

 

Here is roughly what it looked like in person (forgive the horrid JPG destruction, please):

[eye4invisible]

I just got my A7S back from LifePixel. It’s really wonderful! I can go up as far as ISO52,000 or so and get usable photos (with adequate post processing). The Sony cams have no white balance issues at all in camera. I can set a UV white balance or an IR one in camera. There are three CWB slots. The native lens lineup is still a little weak but it’s filled out quite a bit over the last few years.

Okay, then I'm sold on the A7! Thanks for the feedback. Did you get a quartz replacement for the hot mirror filter? Does LP do it? I'd like to go back to KV, but I think that I need the quartz replacement for UV.

 

Nice photo, by the way.

[Andy Perrin]

They don't say what glass they use for replacements, but I doubt it's quartz. Probably one of the kinds that cut off at 280nm or so. I can ask?

[eye4invisible]

Picked up my A7 today (with the 28-70mm kit lens, which I'm going to guess is poor for UV). I'll call KV tomorrow.

 

Thanks again for the feedback!

[dabateman]

In my calls Kolari, seemed to be the only one using quartz. MaxMax and Lifepixel both use 280nm long pass filters.

You can see the graph under what kind of filters do you use for conversion:

https://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-faq

 

[Andrea B.]

I wanted to mention that for my Sony A7R conversion, I am using 4 adapters made by Fotodiox which I have found to be very good.

 

One thing to note about the small, lightweight Sony A cams is that when you add an adapter and an old metal lens, the system can often become very front heavy. So you must remember to always support the lens/adapter in such a way as to not pull on the mount. There have been several reported instances of Sony mount replacement.

 

BTW, this is also a potential problem with other lightweight mirrorless cameras. Birna had a warped Panasonic G-something mount when using the UV-Nikkor on it during the Desert Wildflower Safari of 2012.

 

Point being, as long as you maintain an awareness of the potential pull/warp from certain unsupported lens/adapter combos, then you won't have any trouble.

 

The only consideration about using a quartz internal filter versus a glass internal filter is whether or not there are any restrictions on the cleaning fluid or materials used when cleaning the sensor? Is this quartz internal filter more scratchable? I should go check the specs.

 

None of us are ever going to get anywhere near 280-300 nm, so I don't think it really matters whether you use quartz or 280 glass. I'm always willing to be corrected though. :D

[Andrea B.]

Also, I've never really been a fan of Lifepixel. I hear good and bad things about them (especially in the Facebook photography groups) but it's rare to hear a bad review of Kolari Vision.

 

Interestingly, I have heard a rumor that Kolari is Lifepixel East. I have no idea whether that is true or not.

And, FWIW, I've heard all kinds of things about all the converters. :D Most of this rumor-y stuff I discount.

The point is, however, that all three of Lifepixel, Maxmax and Kolari will make good on any errors which on rare occasions do happen. Kolari has been in business for a shorter time, so there aren't as many reports.

---

 

QUESTION: I can't find anything on the Kolari site which mentions quartz filters. Where is that found, please? Thanks.

 

---

[eye4invisible]

I wanted to mention that for my Sony A7R conversion, I am using 4 adapters made by Fotodiox which I have found to be very good.

Yes, I have a Fotodiox M42 to Nikon F which is well-made. I've also used Neewer products (IR filters and battery charger) with no issues, so I'm going with a Neewer M42 to E mount this time around.

 

One thing to note about the small, lightweight Sony A cams is that when you add an adapter and an old metal lens, the system can often become very front heavy. So you must remember to always support the lens/adapter in such a way as to not pull on the mount. There have been several reported instances of Sony mount replacement.

Yes, I'm always acutely aware of how easy it is for a mount to break/shear off, or become warped. Even when travelling with a small lens, it's better to take it off and put the body cap on, that risk the mount getting damaged in transit.

 

I recently acquired a Rodenstock TV-Heligon 50mm f/0.75 x-ray lens. Very big (mount thread size of 81mm) and very heavy (don't have scales, but it's easily 1kg). I get a workout just lifting it with my left hand to support it when shooting. I've used strong duck tape to attach an 82-52mm step up ring, plus a 42-52mm step up to make the lens M42 mount.

 

What's funny is that this A7 does not feel any lighter than my D3200. It may be lighter, but not perceivably so, especially when the 18-55mm kit lens is on my Nikon, and the 28-70mm lens is on my Sony.

 

The only consideration about using a quartz internal filter versus a glass internal filter is whether or not there are any restrictions on the cleaning fluid or materials used when cleaning the sensor? Is this quartz internal filter more scratchable? I should go check the specs.

 

None of us are ever going to get anywhere near 280-300 nm, so I don't think it really matters whether you use quartz or 280 glass. I'm always willing to be corrected though. :D

I saw some mention of a quartz replacement filter here before - not to reach sub-300nm, but to improve transmission (or so I understood). To my mind, if I'm going to spend money on a professional conversion for UV, I should spend a little more to make it worth the while. One doesn't buy a Porsche and then fill it with 89 octane gas, right? B)

[Andrea B.]

Andy, cool that you have a Rodie. Those Rodenstocks TVs rock!! Such interesting fotos from them. I haven't used mine for a while, so your mention has gotten me fired up to find mine and give it a spin. Mine has a glued-on F-mount. The lens itself has some little flaw somewhere which produces the most interesting light artifacts. I'll find one to post.

 

My mention of Sony lightweight is in contrast to big ole Nikon DSLRs. :D It is very difficult to warp an F-mount. Not that it can't be done, but I don't worry about it quite as much as I do with the A7R or the GH1. The UV-Nikkor or UAT on the A7R was so front-heavy that a lens foot would have been useful.

[eye4invisible]

Andy, cool that you have a Rodie. Those Rodenstocks TVs rock!! Such interesting fotos from them. I haven't used mine for a while, so your mention has gotten me fired up to find mine and give it a spin. Mine has a glued-on F-mount. The lens itself has some little flaw somewhere which produces the most interesting light artifacts. I'll find one to post.

I look forward to that!

 

One thing that I'm happy about with my A7 is the much shorter FFD. My TV-Heligon on a D3200 crop sensor focuses at at distance of about 10cm (probably less) and fills the frame, but I can get about 3-4x the distance with it on the Sony full frame. Makes for more interesting compositions.

 

One advantage with the crop sensor is that I don't get any vignetting with the 72-52mm step down ring (which I have attached to a 67-72 step up ring, which wedges snugly inside the front thread, so I can use my 52mm UV and IR filters. Wih the Sony's full frame, I can't use the filter ring without significant vignetting.

 

I don't think my Rodie qualifies for a place in the UV lenses gallery, especially with my messy duck tape mount modification, but I'll post some photos of it here a little later.

 

One thing I am looking to do is remove the thin black circle on the outside edge of the rear element glass. About 33% of it has already gone, and I'd like to remove the rest, as it's giving me darker, uneven vignetting on the Sony (and I don't think I can get it any closer to the sensor without risking damaging the shutter.

 

What would you recommend I use to remove the rest?

[dabateman]

Andrea,

I got that from this link and in conversations with them.

https://kolarivision.com/specifications/professional-dust-free-conversion-iso-class-5-clean-bench-using-high-quality-glass-fused-quartz/

 

[Andrea B.]

David, thanks for the link! I'm still curious exactly what kind of fused quartz is used. I'll try to get an email off to Kolari to ask.

 

Andy B, I don't have a certain answer for you about removing that black circle. (Mine doesn't have that.) What do you think it might be - paint? or some kind of adhesive? Perhaps something like cerium oxide would polish off the remainder without harming the glass element? That is what I might try first. I think that if you post that question as a separate topic, you might get an answer from someone like Enrico Savazzi and/or other folks who have done a lot of gear experimentation and might have encountered such a thing.

 

The short FFD will certainly be very advantageous. I'll be looking into the new, shorter FFD, Nikon Z7 eventually to see if it is convertible.

[Andrea B.]

Andy B: Here is some Rodenstockography. It's very abstracty.

 

flower

 

 

flower

 

 

stem

There is such a thin, thin depth of field.

 

 

Christmas lights

 

 

some light I don't remember

 

 

gold wedding band

 

 

glass marble

It's a little galaxy or something.

 

 

Like Diamonds on a Titlest

This is one of my all time favs. Can be clicked up larger.

[dabateman]

Andy,

Why don't you try inserting your filters between the 42-52 and 52-82 adapters in the rear of the lens? That should solve the vignetting problem.

Is that a fixed focus, fixed aperture lens?

Seems interesting. Does it perform well for uv?

[eye4invisible]

Why don't you try inserting your filters between the 42-52 and 52-82 adapters in the rear of the lens? That should solve the vignetting problem.

Yes, that seems it'll be the only option. Currently, I've used a pair of 42-52mm step up/step down rings as spacers, so that the 42mm thread is nearly flush with the rear lens element (trying to get as close to the sensor as possible). Will probably just use empty 52mm clear-UV filter rings as spacers, then my 52mm IR/UV bandpass, then a 42-52 step up as the final ring for the M42 to E mount adaptor (which I'm still waiting for delivery on). This will add a few mm extra distance between element and sensor, thus reducing the focusing distance between lens and subject, but at least it'll reduce the vignetting, and it'll still be much closer to the sensor on my Sony than I would ever get with my D3200. A fair trade-off, I think.

 

Is that a fixed focus, fixed aperture lens?

Yes, it is.

 

Seems interesting. Does it perform well for uv?

Haven't really had a chance to test it out in UV. The DoF is extremely shallow and images are very soft:

 

I have no doubt that it transmits UV well, being an x-ray lens, but realistically it doesn't yield enough sharpness to make it truly useable/practical as a UV lens - perhaps for artistic shots only. It's definitely not one to lug around in the field.

[eye4invisible]

Andy B, I don't have a certain answer for you about removing that black circle. (Mine doesn't have that.) What do you think it might be - paint? or some kind of adhesive?

Not sure. Here's a photo of it. Try not to laugh at the duct tape job I've done to attach the mount to the lens:

 

The short FFD will certainly be very advantageous. I'll be looking into the new, shorter FFD, Nikon Z7 eventually to see if it is convertible.

The Z6 and Z7 sound promising, but I'm not going to shell out big bucks for a brand new full frame mirrorless, especially for a 1st generation model, just for multi-spectral work. The Z mount would only be a benefit of 2mm shorter FFD vs the E mount.

 

I like Nikon and my D3200, but they are about 2 years too late to the FF mirrorless party, although the nice knock-on effect is that the older Sony models (such as the A7) are coming down in price. It'll be interesting to see if the Z series will have the same internal shutter IR contimination issue as some of the recent Sony models.

[Andrea B.]

Not sure. Here's a photo of it. Try not to laugh at the duct tape job I've done to attach the mount to the lens.

 

I love MacGyver solutions. Not laughing! It's what we do to get some of our gear up and running for full spec work.

 

 

It'll be interesting to see if the Z series will have the same internal shutter IR contimination issue as some of the recent Sony models.

 

Me too! I would be Very Grumpy if the Z7 turned out to have an internal IR monitor.

 

 

The Z6 and Z7 sound promising, but I'm not going to shell out big bucks for a brand new full frame mirrorless, especially for a 1st generation model, just for multi-spectral work.

 

Well, that's what I'm here for. I'll give it a try and let everyone know if these Zees are convertible or not. I'm hoping so. Even though I do have Lumix, Pentax and Sony conversions, it is no secret that my main shooters are Nikons. Being familiar with the Nikon way of doing things is useful for field work and workflow. Of course the camera line we get started with usually happens by what I call "historical accident". Example: my sister's first digital point-and-shoot was a Canon, so I thought I'd try a Nikon just to be the "different" sister. Now here I am years later with lots o' Nikon stuff. So it goes.

 

Andy B. -- did you see the Rodenstock fotos back there?

[eye4invisible]

Andy B: Here is some Rodenstockography. It's very abstracty.

Wow, some very nice abstracts there, Andrea! I especially like the Christmas lights and the green marble.

 

That's a very interesting flaw in the glass to produce those spectacular specular spots! I'm guessing that there's a tiny crack on one of the internal elements (perhaps similar in shape to the stone-chip crack on a car windscreen).

 

I haven't yet decided if this lens is a keeper. I may well play around with it for inside macro shots during the long cold winter months, then sell it on ebay. It's the main reason why I'm using a strong-but-not-permanent method of converting it to M42 mount.

[Andrea B.]

Mine is a 50mm f/0.75 XR-Heligon. There seems to be a little tiny chip in the coating on the front element. Whether that can cause such a dramatic display of light rays, I don't know.

 

About 10-12 years ago there was a big fad for these old XR and TV Heligons which were used in medical imaging. Then it slowed down a bit. But you still see a lot of experiments with them. Here is a link to one Rodie which was dressed up quite beautifully and given a very useful tripod foot: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60342945

 

My Rodie has a protruding plate with huge screw holes, lots of dings, scratched on inventory number from some past user and a cobbled together mount glued on by this kid in Florida who was trying to make a few dollars. And of course it has that chip or flaw. Naturally I love the heavy old thing and will never part with it.

 

Must go now and try to figure out how to fit a UV-pass filter to the mount end.

[nfoto]

Dpon't bother, Andrea. These lenses are next to unusable for UV. (I have, of course, tried :D )

 

Seems my old personality is mentioned whenever the subject surfaces on a web site. Maybe my old me was (one of the) reason for the "speed fad"? Oh well -- at the end of the day, I probably have worse sins to be laid at my door.