Nikon Cameras - Please clarify - No CCD with Liveview?

[AlexNoir]

Hallo!

 

I know it's probably a very basic question but even I was checking as much as I was able in this Forum I didn't find a conclusion.

 

I am now only in a quite early state of camera selection and I got focused on Nikon.

 

Checking the Equipment others are using I am now between D70 and D3200 (or D90?)

 

D70 because of the more sensitive CCD Sensor (Am I right?)

 

D3200 because of the Live View Function (but CMOS Sensor)

 

Is the something in between which combines both advantages to use for UV Photograph? More sensitive CCD Sensor and Live View from Nikon?

 

What would you recommend someone who only wants to start with UV on a lower level and of course want to get the best out of it ( I would never afford this 105 mm UV lense from Nikon)?

 

The use would be for scientific reason what means to photograph static solid objects (no flowers or in the wildlife etc.)

 

Thank you for your help in advance!

 

Alex

[nfoto]

The D40X is the CCD model of choice over D70, but there is no LiveView. D3200 has Liveview and more than adequate UV capability once modified. In fact, my work horse camera for UV is the D3200. My camera has a dedicated Baader U filter over the sensor to give it more versatility. Still I mostly use the (tiny) viewfinder for all but the most critical work.

[dabateman]

Why are you locked on a Nikon camera?

 

You need to answer these questions.

 

1. What type of uv photography do you want to capture, reflectance or fluorescence.

 

2. What type of final image do you want, monochrome (black and white only) or color?

 

3. What do you want to photograph? Macro, close up flowers, landscape, people, insects, birds, other stuff or mixture of these?

 

4. What is going to be you final media? A 8x10 printed photo, an online image archive, a movie, a 30x40 canvas wall print?

 

5. What is your budget? How much money are you willing to throw away?

 

You may need a m43rds camera for greater depth of field or a 135 format camera for greater sensitivity depending on your answers.

 

[AlexNoir]

Thank you very much for your hint! So I will take for now the D3200! :)

 

Alex

[nfoto]

An optical viewfinder is sometimes much more practical than an EVF. Both types have their strong and weak points.

[ulf]

Alex-

 

Da Bateman's (David) list makes very much sense to consider!!

It is a good idea to keep an open mind until you have found the optimal camera matching your needs!

 

It might be that Nikon is right for you, but it must not be so, even if many here use Nikons.

 

Different brands, including Nikon and different types of cameras has many pros and cons for different types of UV-photography.

 

I think point no. 3 on David's list is quite important.

 

More points added to David's list might be:

 

6. Do you need to reach focus at infinity?

 

7. I the size and weight of the equipment important, reasonably stationary to be used indoors only, possible to carry outdoors or possible to put in a pocket?

 

8. Do you already have lenses from a specific brand and want to use some of them for NIR on the modified camera?

 

On my camera I value the Live View Function very much and have capped the optical viewfinder completely to avoid any issues with light leakage that way.

As I mainly do close up, flowers and often low and outdoors, I very much like that my Live View display is articulated.

Sometimes focusing would have been impossible without that feature.

 

Using an optical viewfinder successfully for UV is best done with specialist UV-lenses with little focus shift from VIS to UV. (read as the UV-Nikkor 105mm).

[Andrea B.]

CCD DSLR cameras did not have Live View.

CCD sensors are not more sensitive.

The old CCD cameras appeared more sensitive because they did not have strong internal UV/IR blocking filters.

 

In any CCD or CMOS digital camera, once the internal filtration is removed, you get approximately the same sensitivity to UV or IR. The most sensitive sensor to UV is currently found in any digital camera which has been converted to monotone by removal of internal blocking filters *and* the Bayer sensor.

 

Current "best" cameras for conversion because of

good quality sensor (low noise, high ISO, wide dynamic range)

AND good Live View.

 

Nikon D610, D800, D810, D850. (Nikon D750 is not convertible.) (Nikons have the best Live View.)

Sony A line (although be careful because some are not convertible. And some have lossy compression. Live View/EVF is good, but not superior.)

Pentax K1 or K5 (Live View a bit weak.)

 

Next we have:

 

Canon 5D or 6D line

Nikon models in the 3000/5000/7000 range

Sony Nex line

Olympus OMD line

Panasonic Lumix G line

 

(I can't specifically list all the model designations.)

[dabateman]

Rereading your original question. And without any answers to my questions.

I would recommend a Sigma SDQ, as it has live view, can be converted to full spectrum by just removing the dust cover and is sensitive to 335nm. But its Uv detection is only monochrome. No color.

 

Other recommendation is Olympus Em1. The stock camera is sensitive to 370nm. And you can convert it to full Uvb/uvA detection latter. The cameras are also really cheap. I have seen some go for $300 on ebay. But, try to get one where the dials have been fixed. I had no issues, but after conversion the dials stop working. Fortunately, Kolari did an excellent job repairing it.

[AlexNoir]

Hello!

 

Sorry that I havn't answered ye to that question, but as you see we've only wrote our answers in 5 min distance and when I realized that there is one more answer in front of me it was only too late and I went to bed. I only came now again to that topic. So:

 

Why are you locked on a Nikon camera?

 

You need to answer these questions.

 

1. What type of uv photography do you want to capture, reflectance or fluorescence.

 

both

 

2. What type of final image do you want, monochrome (black and white only) or color?

 

Monochrome and color

 

3. What do you want to photograph? Macro, close up flowers, landscape, people, insects, birds, other stuff or mixture of these?

 

Usual motionless cultural heritage (objects and partly monuments)

 

4. What is going to be you final media? A 8x10 printed photo, an online image archive, a movie, a 30x40 canvas wall print?

 

non of these - it's for analysis of preservation of objects - or than most like your point of online image archive - but as you see here the pictures do not really need a good resolution or focus as far as I can compare areas in different light ranges

 

5. What is your budget? How much money are you willing to throw away?

 

For now low as possible because I only want to figure out how it will work for me

 

6. Do you need to reach focus at infinity?

 

So far not nessessary because the main focus is on objects

 

7. I the size and weight of the equipment important, reasonably stationary to be used indoors only, possible to carry outdoors or possible to put in a pocket?

 

So far only indoor

 

8. Do you already have lenses from a specific brand and want to use some of them for NIR on the modified camera?

 

I ordered a UV lense (Kyoei 35mm) and the others are classical Nikon lenses

 

 

So in general you can tell that I am used to long time exposure - my experiences are so far only on UV Fluoreszence and NIR-Photography. I am already well equiped with Nikon equipment (Main Kamera currently Nikon D7200 and a Backup D200) and so also quite used to it - that's why my decission for the body is Nikon.

 

 

So hopefully this brings more light to my intention about the selection of the Camera :)

 

Best regards,

 

Alex

[Andrea B.]

A reminder that shooting indoors will require supplemental UV lighting preferably in the form of a UV flash. And a UV-LED torch (flashlight) is necessary to provide focusing light if using Live View.

 

If you go Nikon, I think you definitely should get a Nikon body with Live View. It is *truly* a pain-in-the-*** to shoot UV without it. Get the best used body you can afford. Remember, you can always convert it back to a regular camera and use it as a backup. I'd go for a used D610. I'm still very happy with that conversion. Good dynamic range and ISO. Great for either UV or IR. On Nikons older than D610 (or around that time) you will not have as good of Live View.

 

Alternately, if you want to really go cheap, skip Nikon and get an old Panasonic Lumix GH1. It is such an easy little camera to learn UV on. It can make a fairly accurate in-camera white balance which is a huge aid when shooting UV (gets rid of excess red). Its menus are understandable. You would need a lens mount adapter but inexpensive lens adapters can be found on Ebay or at Fotodiox. The Live View is not detailed but very useable in the sense of being brighter in UV than are some LCDs.

 

I also note what David (dabateman) said about the Olympuses. They have been very popular for UV. And have a wide usage amongst our membership.

 

I do documentary work so I am overly fixated, perhaps, on good sensors for high ISO and for dynamic range. That is not really needed to make good beginning UV photos.

 

Well, Alex, whatever you choose to convert, I'm sure you will enjoy it. We will be looking forward to seeing your first attempts. And answer any further questions. :D

[dabateman]

Well it may sound odd, but you said 3D objects. So the first thing that comes to my mind is a micro four thirds camera. You really gain the extra depth of field.

 

Then even though the menus can be a pain, I would still recommend an Olympus. They typically have weak UV filters on the stock camera. So you can use them before you jump to a conversion. Also most Panasonic m43rds cameras have an IR shutter monitor, making them almost useless for UV.

 

You can buy very cheap 365nm Led bulbs. To light your subjects or 405nm led bulbs, typically referred to as black light leds. These will help illuminated your objects no matter what camera you decide on.

 

My stock Em1 mk1 could see to 370nm. Using a Baader venus filter or a 390bp25 filter was able to take UV images. I then got it converted and can see into UVb now. This seems like possibly a hard thing to do.

I just picked up a stock Olympus Em5mk2 really cheap. I am going to keep it stock as a good walk around camera. It too can see to 370nm. I haven't tested further yet. But it is 3 stops slower than my full spectrum Em1 at 390nm and 6 stops slower at 370nm. This isn't as good as my Em1, before conversion.

 

The Nikons may work as well and your used to them. But one major Nikon problem is that they don't do in camera WB. So there is that to consider. My new to me Em5 was able to easily get a WB. And so does my Em1 generally. One problem with the Em1 though is the dials can stop being responsive. This happened to mine latter after conversion. But Kolari did an excellent job repairing it.

 

[nfoto]

You don't "gain depth of field", you get a lower magnification with a shorter focal length.

[dabateman]

You don't "gain depth of field", you get a lower magnification with a shorter focal length.

 

Did you mean higher magnification? You go from 1x to 2x basically. This effectively gives you the central image which results in more relative depth of field than a 135 format sensor. With the advancement in sensors the Olympus Em1 mk2 is better than all current 135 format sensors at the same depth of field of the final image.

[nfoto]

I meant exactly what I wrote. And I do own amongst many other systems, the Olympus EM1.2 so can compare.

[dabateman]

Sorry Birna,

I am not trying to arguing equivalent, I just don't understand what your saying.

 

I too own a Pentacon six film camera (6x6), current 135 format camera is Nikon Df and I have a bunch of 43rds now. For macro close up I always use the 43rds as I need more in focus with my limited light. And the output has always been better.

 

The other advantage for me is I like longer focal length in general. So the 85mm of UAT hits perfect close up point on m43rds for me. For a 135 format camera I would need longer extension tube, resulting in even narrower depth of field.

 

I have kind of settled on 16Mpixels, as seems perfect for me. Thus the Nikon Df, Panasonic Gm5, Olympus Em1 and now Em5mk2 all fit my vision. I never really got along with the SLR/n at 14Mpixel. Odd I know but didn't feel right. My other odd ball cameras are Olympus E3 and E510 at 10Mpixels, but I shoot them at 8Mpixels or use Photoacute to "supersize" a five image stack. Then there is my Sigma SD14, which generally is hard to explain.

 

So I just don't know what you mean. Can you explain it simply, and I will try your test?

 

As for me I can use f5.6 or f8 instead of f11 or f16 on the UAT and get same depth of field using same light result in using a lower ISO value in camera, which results in a cleaner final image file. Comparing GM5 vs DF, the Gm5 was better. Even using a Panasonic 42.5mm f1.2 lens on the Gm5 and 85mm f1.4 lens on the Df.

[nfoto]

Using a smaller format does not imply an additional magnification of detail. Neither will it give more depth of field.

 

On the other hand, using a smaller format does require more focusing accuracy.

[Andy Perrin]

The way I’m picturing it (no pun intended), changing the format only affects which patch of the image plane is recorded and how closely it is sampled. Using a smaller format cannot give more depth of field because depth of field depends only on the optics, not the sensor. It cannot give additional detail because the detail is determined by the circle of confusion, which again is down to the optics not the sensor.

[dabateman]

I will stay out of this one.

But let me say that an image recorded on an m43rds camera with exposure settings of f8, ISO 200, 1/2 second shutter will look exactly the same as a photo captured on a 135 format camera with f16, ISO 800, 1/2 second shutter.

 

[nfoto]

Or not.

 

Certainly, parameters can be twisted to whatever end one wants. Still, basic facts are shorter focal length: lower magnification of detail, no matter what format is used for the sensor.

 

I'll end it there.