Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

dSLR vs. mirrorless for UV?


msubees

Recommended Posts

I saw Iggy's nice shots using a Super Lentar lens (which seems quite cheap on ebay, if available) and a mirrorless, so I started a discussion last night with him...

 

now I am stuck between

 

1A. stay dSLR. I already have 3 macro lens, 20-35mm F/2.8 Nikkor and a D700. but most of these are useless for UV.

 

if I stay dSLR, I will need to buy a D3100 ($210) + conversion ($275 + shipping), or

1B: simply by D40 and stay put (no filters, no full spectrum)....

 

2). go mirrorless:

can buy a E-PL1 full spectrum converted with a lens for $264, or E-PM1 for $229 (no lens).

advantage: much easier to find old lens and adapt to this camera? cheaper than converting D3100. filters easier to attach to most lenses?

disadvtange: more stuff to buy...filters...lenses...

 

Enna Munchen should work on E-PL1? assume i buy a cheap M42 to mirrorless adaptor (i assume diferent cameras have diferent connections? although Iggy says Panasonic and Olympus lenses are interchangeable).

 

UV stuff already invested:

 

have Enna munchen lens, which has 2" Baader UV-IR blocking filter and a M42-Nikon adaptor (with a uv transmitting lens on it).

D.O. industries enlarge lens,

also bought 2 more M42-Nikon adaptors yesterday.

 

going route 2 might be more fun? but searching on ebay takes a lot of time....

Link to comment

Either approach will work and neither is perfect. Thus, I use both.

 

The problem with mirrorless and UV is that you do need a lot of UV to "see" the scene in the EVF and in particular if you use the focus magnifier loupe functionality. Using LiveView on a DSLR actually may be much easier for focusing and the easiest of all is having an optical finder and the filtration inside the camera.

Link to comment

Bjorn,

 

thanks. I assumed that the mirrorless EVF was the same as liveview....i guess not. liveview has already the Apture info considered (thus will be dark if underexposed) but EVF will be like a finder? you see a bright scene but can record a dark photo.? did not play with a mirrorless before so forgive my ignorance.

 

Either approach will work and neither is perfect. Thus, I use both.

 

The problem with mirrorless and UV is that you do need a lot of UV to "see" the scene in the EVF and in particular if you use the focus magnifier loupe functionality. Using LiveView on a DSLR actually may be much easier for focusing and the easiest of all is having an optical finder and the filtration inside the camera.

Link to comment

Functionality of Live View is different in different camera systems. I never had serious problems using Live View of several different Sony NEX cameras, even when conditions outdoors (amount of UV) was not optimal. But I can not compare them with Panasonic or Olympus because I do not have either of two. I should mention that the amount of UV light in Stockholm is not that much different than in Oslo, and I often miss those times when I lived in sunny California.

 

EVF will work in exactly the same way as read LCD - Live View refers to both. However, some camera models will allow you to switch the EVF/rear LCD to a mode, when the camera increases the brightness of the image artificially, thus not reflecting the actual exposure. You will be able to see the image (albeit rather noisy) in the EVF or on the rear LCD screen, even though the actual photo will be severely underexposed. In Sony cameras this option is called "Live View Display - Settings Effect". When it is "ON", the Live View will try to reflect the exposure of the final image, and when it is "OFF", the Live View will increase (gain) the brightness so you can see the object you photograph, even though the final picture will be underexposed.

Link to comment
I forgot to say that I do not take UV pictures indoors, where Live View will be much less effective than having a camera with optical viewfinder.
Link to comment

The EVF applies electronic gain to brighten the displayed image. There is just so much you (or rather, the camera) can crank up the gain and still keep a clear image not too perturbed by noise. There is also the unavoidable fact none of the lenses we're using for UV work is native to the various mirrorless systems. Thus they have no aperture automation and only work at shooting aperture which darkens the view even further.

 

In principle the LiveView of a DSLR acts in the same manner as for a mirrorless camera, but there are considerable variation as to how LV is implemented and the ways it can be set up. Thus making general statements are questionable.

 

A DSLR has the option of providing a view through an optical finder which is way brighter than any EVF can provide (in UV). This assumes of course the bandpass filter is internal (for a mirrorless camera the location of the filter has no bearing on the outcome as the EVF/LiveView reads off the sensor directly). Using lenses with native mount can give LiveView working at wide open aperture as well so you get a brighter image. Failing aperture automatic operation, you basically face the same issues as with mirrorless cameras.

 

In the end, the inescapable fact is you often need a UV torch for a focusing aid no matter what system you run, unless you are fortunate enough to have a DSLR with internal UV (or IR) bandpass filtration *and* a lens either parfocal UV/Vis or with negligible focus shift..

Link to comment

hmmmm....I want to capture some early spring flowers here....so maybe I will just return my D40X and get a D40. then slowly trying mirrorless later.....tough decision!

 

i will flip a coin next week....to see if E-PL1 or D40 :D

Link to comment
One more thing that might be important for some people to consider is - how useable is the camera with non-native lenses. If one has UV-Nikkor or Coastal Apo than using those on Nikon cameras will be the most effective. But there are certain models of cameras that will not meter automatically, or even will not shoot at all, if they can not recognize the lens (if the lens is not native to the camera system, or does not have a special chip to "fool" the camera). It is a well known issue with some older Sony DSLR models, and some models of mirrorless cameras.
Link to comment

Get a D40 and try it. If you don't like it, sell it and try again.

 

You won't have Live View with a D40, so you will have to focus in Visible light, then add your UV filter.

Gotta be on tripod for this.

 

KEH.com currently has a D40 in excellent condition for $150.

Link to comment

The EVF only applies a "brightness gain" to live-view images if that option is turned on, in the menu. But on the Olympus Micro-4/3 models in question (as mentioned by Zach), the option is off, by default (unless you are shooting in "AUTO" mode. And who does that, for UV work?). So there is no misleading representation of what you are seeing through the EVF.

 

Hence, the EVF is the most effective and efficient full-time live view route ... because you get a "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" image with your eye to the viewfinder, with no chances of bright sunlight becoming a potential nuisance (unlike playing around with locking up your mirror on a DSLR and then hoping that harsh, direct sunlight doesn't compete for your ability to analyze the image on the screen).

 

Also, as Zach correctly pointed out, mirrorless cameras (particularly the Micro-4/3 platform, as an example) have much greater flexibility with lens adaptations from other systems, given their very short register / flange distances. And that allows a lens adaptation to maintain infinity focus, with most adaptations. No so, with DSLRS that have larger registers / flange distances, of which, one may lose infinity focus through a non-native lens adaptation ... or, be forced to use an adapter with potentially image-degrading corrective glass (if infinity focus remains vital).

 

There are many other advantages. For example: A light, more compact package means more maneuverability in composition. It also means that you can bring along smaller, mini tripods, and still keep your image stable. Not so, with a heavier DSLR, which requires a bulkier, heavier tripod for UV work.

Link to comment

Indeed, with Nikon I have use M mode and then it will shoot anyway, no metering with my Enna Munchen lens. it is all guestimate.

 

Iggy, can you confirm that mirrorless (olympus you have?) will take a manual lens and shoot provided one uses M mode? since you were using these very old tiny lens (110?). Thanks, Zach

One more thing that might be important for some people to consider is - how useable is the camera with non-native lenses. If one has UV-Nikkor or Coastal Apo than using those on Nikon cameras will be the most effective. But there are certain models of cameras that will not meter automatically, or even will not shoot at all, if they can not recognize the lens (if the lens is not native to the camera system, or does not have a special chip to "fool" the camera). It is a well known issue with some older Sony DSLR models, and some models of mirrorless cameras.

Link to comment

Iggy, can you confirm that mirrorless (olympus you have?) will take a manual lens and shoot provided one uses M mode?

 

The Micro-4/3 platform actually specializes at non-native lens adaptability. That is, in fact, its known redeeming asset, in the photography world. (The Sony NEX platform being its only true rival in that regard.) This is why there are more lens adapters being manufactured for Micro-4/3 and NEX systems, than any other platforms!

 

This is why even many pro videographers have switched to mirrorless systems for at least part of their work. A much larger selection of non-native lens adaptability ... including older cine / c-mount lenses with "preset" (or "click-less") apertures ... of which the smaller image circles still fully cover the Micro-4/3 sensor, with no discernible vignetting (provided you don't try to adapt a cine lens under 25mm focal length. Below that, things get tricky, where some cine / c-mount lenses cover the image circle, and some don't. That requires research).

 

In any case, yes ... you can shoot to your heart's content, with any manually-adapted lens. And not just in "M" mode, but also virtually any mode, short of full AUTO. The only thing you have to do, is get into the main menu, and select the "shoot without lens" option, and you are open to a world of possibilities. :D

Link to comment

"Hence, the EVF is the most effective and efficient full-time live view route ... because you get a "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" image with your eye to the viewfinder, with no chances of bright sunlight becoming a potential nuisance (unlike playing around with locking up your mirror on a DSLR and then hoping that harsh, direct sunlight doesn't compete for your ability to analyze the image on the screen)."

 

That is maybe true - if the EVF shows anything at all .... Even the usually nice EVF of my GH-2 would not show me *any* UV scene today as there simply was too little UV incident to the scene. I had to resort to using a camera with optical finder ...

 

If you are troubled with sidelight, use an eyecup. No need to advocate an EVF for that (besides, the EVF will likewise be troubled with flare and glare if you shoot with glasses, so also here the solution starts with an eyecup).

 

You can add a Zacuto or similar focusing hood/loupe to your LV display. Works well enough. I do have it on my D600 for UV work. The D3200 has the UV bandpass filtration internally, so works without any additional viewing aids of any kind and since it uses an optical finder, there is no problem with UV-induced darkness.

 

Adding CPU chips to old lenses to make them meter etc. is easy for Nikon mount. Not sure what can be done with other mount systems.

Link to comment

Adding CPU chips to old lenses to make them meter etc. is easy for Nikon mount. Not sure what can be done with other mount systems.

 

True indeed. About other camera systems I can only talk about Sony. Older Sony DSLRs also required a chip. Newer Sony models (both DSLR and mirrorless) do not need anything besider setting "shoot without the lens" option to ON.

Link to comment

That is maybe true - if the EVF shows anything at all .... Even the usually nice EVF of my GH-2 would not show me *any* UV scene today as there simply was too little UV incident to the scene. I had to resort to using a camera with optical finder.

 

But that's comparing apples and oranges (optical, versus electronic image display).

 

What is being compared here, is LCD versus EVF for live view ... both of which will turn dark, when there is not enough UV in the scene. If you switch back to using an optical viewfinder for a scene, then this is not live-view, so this is not part of the comparison that I am making, here.

 

In live-view, however ... what turns an EVF dark will also turn an LCD dark.

 

You can add a Zacuto or similar focusing hood/loupe to your LV display. Works well enough. I do have it on my D600 for UV work.

 

Which, essentially, turns your LCD into an EVF, by design. However, that can turn an already bulkier DSLR into an even larger object to deal with.

 

I have such a special attachment added to one of my DSLRs. It's an added convenience, yes ... but it doesn't turn my DSLR into the compact and flexible convenience of a Micro-4/3 platform which still has its own built-in, dedicated EVF system, without any potentially cumbersome stick-ons or glue-ons.

 

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

 

Ultimately, I agree that it comes down to taste. However, after shooting UV for 2 years now (and I am still learning and experimenting) ... I now prefer a mirrorless system over a DSLR, for my UV work. The advantages of a broadband mirrorless system blow away and outpace any advantages of a broadband mirror-based system, in my opinion.

 

The one thing that a broadband-converted mirrorless system easily beats out, over a broadband-converted mirror-based (especially for UV work) ... is a more streamlined, efficient work-flow. Meaning, less steps taken, to obtain the final result.

Link to comment

Heck, they are now even starting to manufacture full-frame mirrorless systems. As far as I am concerned, the EVF technology is evolving so well ... that the mirror-based dinosaur's days are numbered. :D

 

(I could be wrong, but the same thing was happening ... when digital cameras first appeared, to reduce the work-flow of film-based work.)

 

Now, we are at the crossroads of another potential revolution: The end of the rattle-trap mirror-box as we know it ... and all of its slapping, noisy, and vibration-causing operation.

Link to comment
Iggy, you won! I will go with mirrorless.... I will come by to your house one day and take 1/10 of your old lenses :D :)
Link to comment

I am not trying to win, here. :D I am just pleading my own case, and my own perspective ... which is no better or worse than anyone else's.

 

In truth, the best way to learn of all that UV work has to offer ... is to own (or borrow) at least one broadband-converted DSLR ... and own (or borrow) at least one broadband-converted mirrorless system. Then, decide for yourself.

 

Everyone has tastes and preferences. I just like mirrorless better, after trying both ways.

 

And ... if nothing else, I greatly value the more clearly experienced members of this forum, much more so than just blindly accept everything based on my own opinions. Because if it weren't for them, I wouldn't even learn about UV.

Link to comment

that the mirror-based dinosaur's days are numbered. :D

 

I have a strange feeling I have heard this statement before about film, about black-and-white film, and about many other different things...

Link to comment

I have a strange feeling I have heard this statement before about film, about black-and-white film, and about many other different things...

 

Ok. Point taken. :) Nothing goes "completely extinct" in the "tech toys" world. That would be an absolutist view, I agree.

 

However, how many local businesses and venues still support film-based work? If my digital camera breaks, the replacement parts and work are more readily available. The tech centers are there. And digital media is on every store shelve.

 

Whereas, where is the tech support for film cameras, any longer? Where are the film-development centers at local stores?

 

I get what you are saying. Regardless, there is a reason why the majority of work now shifted to digital, in place of film (even if film remains a minority). That reason being: That the digital camera improved work-flow, and made many processes more efficient.

 

Besides, if you want to use the argument that "nothing goes completely extinct" (which is certainly true) ... then why not just start doing all of your photo work, from now on, with a single-exposure dry plate mounted inside of a heavy wooden box, check and mark off your distances for your prime lens, examine a separate light meter, draw a curtain over your head, and explode a single-use magnesium/phosphor bulb for your flash? :)

 

In fact, why not even poke a tiny hole in the wall, and trace out the resulting image on the opposite wall, with your bare hands?

 

So, why did you switch to digital, kind sir? :D

 

(We cannot deny the movement towards greater efficiency and work-flow, over time.)

Link to comment
On dinosaurs: I think UVP members should refrain from these kinds of statements. None of us is blessed with the ability to predict the future.
Link to comment

So, why did you switch to digital, kind sir? :D

 

Hmm... so why did I just unpack a parcel with some developers and an uncommon size sheet film (half plate), which I had to get from Czech republic through Norway....

 

I can find enough contrarguments for every sentence in your statement, Igor, but I will not. As Bjørn just said, we should refrain from statement that can offence other participants of the forum. It is happening way too often on other forums all over the internet.

Link to comment

I apologize if I have offended anyone by using the word "dinosaur" to describe the mirror-box-based SLR (which is, in all due honesty, a very old technology for photographic imaging ... dating back to the late 1800's for the very first production models).

 

So, it was more sarcasm, than anything else. Not intended to be hostile or offensive, here. Not any more than anyone else who injects humor or sarcasm into their responses.

 

Thanks for the discussion, all!

Link to comment
Exactly. I am tired of such meaningless discussions. There is no right or wrong, black or white, wise or unwise, solution anywhere. One will have to assume everyone makes the best choice amongst those options available to them. Inferring otherwise is not commendable.
Link to comment
Thank you all! I learned a lot here....since film and vacuum tubes almost disappeared, for a minute I thought Ole was on the same side as Iggy....oh, well. will report my findings with a "new" (to me) mirrorless territory. this is largely Iggy's fault by showing me his 100+ lenses last night... :D
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...