Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Cameras for UV: Pros & Cons of Various Choices


Andrea B.

Recommended Posts

Maybe these Pros & Cons would be useful to beginners? Although I must say that there is no predicting what UV gear is appealing to a beginner! Some beginners just want to experiment and don't want to spend much, but other beginners have certain goals in mind and need to match a certain level of image quality.

 

Please do mention any other Pros or Cons and I will add them.

Later I will link this post in the Stickies.

 

Of course, as always, comments welcomed !!

And please let me know of any errors or typos.

 

The sensor quality comments are mostly about dynamic range, noise and high ISO capability. Please take this in stride - you can have an average sensor and still obtain a very good image from it with proper attention to exposure and lighting.

 

 

Expenses Associated with a UV-Capable Camera

  • The Camera.
    Of course.
  • Conversion fee.
    Unless you go with one of the old Nikons, you will need to convert the camera.
  • Lens mount adapter to fit camera.
    Unless you have a Nikon body and can find a UV-capable F-mount lens, you will need to buy a lens adapter to fit your camera's mount.

Old Nikon D70, D70S, D40

I would include here as a shadow list such cameras as the Nikon D40S/70S, D50/60/80/90, D200/300 all of which would have the same Pros & Cons list except that these cameras must be converted.

 

Pros:

  • Cheap & plentiful.
  • No conversion fee.
    These bodies have fairly weak internal UV/IR blocking filters which will pass enough UV to make a photo under good UV illumination.

Cons:

  • Discontinued (old).
    Support for parts and repair may be lacking.
  • No Live View.
    You must focus before mounting UV-pass filter, then re-adjust focus to compensate for focus shift between UV and Visible wavelengths.
  • Old Nikons have fair to average sensors capability relative to the most recent top-of-the-line excellent sensors.
  • Long flange focal distance.
    If you want to focus to infinity, you must find a UV-capable lens which has an FFD longer than 46.5mm. This rules out many of the cheaper, simply constructed 35/3.5 lenses.
  • Lens adapters may be required.
    If you can find an EL-Nikkor or Nikon E-series, you won't need an adapter.

Discontinued Panasonic Lumix G (µ4/3) or Sony Nex

Andrea writes an opinion:

In spite of the fact that you will need to pay a conversion fee to use one of these cameras for UV photography, I think the benefits of Live View (with sufficient UV illumination) and a short flange focal distance make these cameras the best inexpensive choice for those who do not wish to invest a lot of money in UV gear.

As always, my opinion is only my opinion and YMMV. :)

 

Pros:

  • Cheap & plentiful.
  • Live View.
    However --- be aware that sufficiently strong sunlight or a UV torch may be required in order to make good use of Live View in UV.
  • Video.
  • Short flange focal distance.
    Lumix has an FFD of 19.25mm. Nex has an FFD of 18mm.
    There are probably more lens choices available for a camera with a shorter FFD. If you are particularly interested in infinity focus (landscapes), this could be important for you.

Cons:

  • Discontinued.
    Support for parts and repair may be lacking.
  • Conversion fee.
    These bodies must have their strong internal UV/IR blocking filters removed.
  • Lens adapters usually required.
  • Older Lumix have average sensor capability relative to the most recent top-of-the-line excellent sensors.
    Older Nex have good sensor capability relative to the most recent top-of-the-line excellent sensors.

Discontinued Nikon D or Pentax K with Live View

These two camera lines have been well-known for good image quality, so I am separating from the preceding list. They will tend to be a little more expensive than discontinued Lumix or Nex bodies. Pentax is often overlooked as a UV camera but there are quite a lot of M42 UV-capable lenses available for use with a K-to-M42 lens mount adapter.

 

Pros:

  • Reasonably priced and easy to find.
    Of the two, you can probably get a discontinued Pentax for a little less than a Nikon.
  • Live View.
    However --- be aware that sufficiently strong sunlight or a UV torch may be required in order to make good use of Live View in UV.
  • Video.
  • Many M42 UV-capable lens choices for Pentax.

Cons:

  • Discontinued.
    Support for parts and repair may be lacking.
  • Conversion fee.
    These bodies must have their strong internal UV/IR blocking filters removed.
  • Lens adapters sometimes required for Nikon, usually required for Pentax.
  • Good sensors relative to the most recent top-of-the-line excellent sensors.

Canon DSLRs for UV Photography

We simply do not have enough information to make any Pros/Cons list for Canon DSLRs. The generally prevailing rumor is that the Canon sensor is less UV-capable. However, I have yet to see any tests or measurements done with a converted Canon DSLR which is why I use the 'rumor' label. See UPDATE below.

 

We would welcome any links that anyone finds on the use of a converted Canon DSLR for UV photography. We do have one member who shoots successfully from all appearances with a converted Canon DSLR, so we hope to gain more insight from their work.

 

UPDATE: OK - in addition to our member Ahr's use of a Canon 20D for UV, we have this link found by Alex H. to the use of a Canon Rebel 3Ti (aka 600d) for UV by the Australian photographer MickeyJ: http://blogs.msmvps..../#comment-47430. And here is a YouTube link to a converted Canon EOS: https://www.youtube....?v=o9BqrSAHbTc.

 

I think we can lay rumors to rest about Canon's being unsuitable for broadband conversion.

 

 

Olympus µ4/3 for UV Photography

Again I don't have enough information to make a Pros/Cons list. But we have one good example of an Olympus µ4/3 camera converted to broadband by Boon Tang. Here is a link to his photography blog where he posts UV photos made with his converted Olympus E-PM1: http://myphotojourney.co.uk/

 

 

Best Image Quality in UV Photography

The best sensor produces the best UV photograph just as it would for Visible photography.

 

Working in Ultraviolight light adds some complications to image making. There is not much UV in sunlight even on a bright sunny day, so you will almost always need to supplement sunlight with some UV flash. Even then UV exposures will likely be longer and very often noisier than their Visible counterparts. There are a lot of strong shadow and highlight contrasts in most UV scenes. To combat UV's noise, blocked shadows and blown highlights it is very useful to have a converted camera whose sensor has a wide dynamic range and excellent high ISO capability. The Pentax K5, Nikon D610 or Sony A7 are just three examples of such cameras with excellent image capability. There are many more.

 

Because the shorter UV wavelengths reveal more detail in most scenes, it is nice, but certainly not necessary, to use a converted camera with a larger number of megapixels. Your choice there would be made the same way you would make it for Visible photography - more MP is good if you are printing large. Otherwise, don't worry about it.

Link to comment

What do you base your discrimination of image quality for all these cameras, Andrea? Modern E-mount APS-C cameras are (some formerly called NEX-line), including NEX-6 are very good comparing to for example Pentax K5. In fact, that makes me wonder why APS-C Pentax K5 is places alonside fullframe Nikon D610 and Sony A7?

 

Besides, Sony NEX line is not discontinued. Discontinued is just the name. They are all now called aXXXX (XXXX can be 5000, 5100, 6000 etc).

 

One more note - NEX-5N and NEX-6 are one of the easiest cameras to convert - very few parts, only two or three types of screws, ICF is no longer glued to the sensor.

Link to comment

I'm trying to refer to discontinued models in a particular line.

Because they will cost less.

 

Image quality - based on my eyes and reviews. But I think I should qualify that and refer to sensors only. After all the point is well made, you can have an average sensor and still obtain a very good image with some care. (I said this somewhere above.)

Also, Sony Nex has always been better than Lumix in sensors, so I should have mentioned that.

 

Better?

 

Added: I went with "average" and "good" which is fairly benign and shouldn't step on any toes I hope.

 

***********

 

Added: Anyone know anything about Olympus cameras for UV? I have no information or experience there.

Link to comment

...that makes me wonder why APS-C Pentax K5 is places alonside fullframe Nikon D610 and Sony A7?

Pentax K5 line is a member of the wide dynamic range group along with some Nikon models and some Sony A models.

K5 works a treat for UV shooting. Clarity.

Link to comment

Full spectrum converted Canons seem to be well favored by astronomers as evidenced by the wide range of spectral imaging accessories available for them.

Astronomik and Hutec body filters, Baader Protective DSLR T ring with built-in 48mm filter and various makes of filter drawers/sliders with native Canon mounts.

Enough to make one want to try a Canon....

Link to comment

Aren't they used for H-alpha and suchlike spectral bands geared toward IR? Never heard about their use in UV so may not be that commonly put to service for this spectral range.

 

Fine to be proved wrong though. Camera diversity is good for our dedicated purpose.

Link to comment

H-alpha certainly seems the more popular astro-imaging band than UV, perhaps it is favored for that reason.

 

I have zero Canon experience but if it has a CMOS sensor and UV blocking filters removed, how would it not be UV-sensitive?

 

MAX MAX spectral sensitivity curves suggest the Canon 40D may be worth a look in UV.

 

I almost went with a Canon DSLR for my full spectrum conversion but was swayed by lens adaptability of mirrorless. B)

Link to comment

Not everyone agrees with the Max Max measurement methodology.

 

BTW, we have not heard of any UV-capable lenses which could be used without an adapter on a converted Canon body. There may be some, but we have no reports of them.

 

Of course any UV-capable lens with a Nikon F-mount can be successfuly used on a Canon body with an adapter. That does give you the Rayfact 105/4.5 and Coastal 60/4.5 if you needed top lens quality for a Canon conversion.

 

However adapters always cause some hit to image quality. Although of course there would be no hit to UV transmission as long as the adapter does not contain any glass.

Link to comment
I was more thinking of a practical demonstration. You know, subject with known UV signature and etc. Canons might even be able to adapt Nikkors, can't they? But I'd hate to lose all the pertinent EXIF data provided by my 'chipped' Nikkors. A reason (amongst others) why I don't use my Panasonics that much for UV these days (they do fine with video though).
Link to comment

I was more thinking of a practical demonstration. You know, subject with known UV signature and etc. Canons might even be able to adapt Nikkors, can't they? But I'd hate to lose all the pertinent EXIF data provided by my 'chipped' Nikkors. A reason (amongst others) why I don't use my Panasonics that much for UV these days (they do fine with video though).

 

Here is one of the examples I could find: http://blogs.msmvps.com/mickyj/blog/2013/01/12/canon-dslr-eos-cameras-and-ultraviolet-uv-photography/

There are also some interesting comments. But it is in no way a direct comparison, and the images are not easy to interpret due to unusual WB.

Link to comment

OK. Canons can be modified to do UV. Nothing was stated regarding exposure times (other than the exposures being long), so we still know nothing about the actual camera response. His UV false-colour balance was off though, but that probably could be amended by proper technique.

 

Now, if the C had a UV-Nikkor equivalent, the playing field would be wider.

Link to comment

Alex, you rock man for finding that Canon UV link!!! I'm going to add it to the post above. Thx.

I left a comment on Mickey's site inviting him to stop by and visit us.

 

Checking the EXIF I see that the yellow flower UV photo was exposed for 1/10" @ISO 800 but there is no info on the aperture setting used.

Regardless of ap, this photo proves to me that a Canon mod can get the shot at least in the upper UV levels. The particular Canon used was a Rebel T3i as given in the EXIF. This is another name for the Canon 600d mentioned in the text.

Link to comment

My personal opinion is currently the best system is the Sony E-mount line (used to be the NEX line but now also called Alpha, just to make things easier I will keep referring to them as NEX B) ). Because of the short flange distance it allows many lenses (including Leica M, or M39) to be adapted. Even the EL-Nikkors can be adapted with having infinity and a NEX - M39 helicoid adapter is very inexpensive. As mentioned before the conversion is quite easy and these cameras go for quite low price (I got my Nex-6 already converted with a Spectosil 2000 fused silica gel, for the best UV performance for $400 with only 631 shutter actuations... if required I will try to dig my emails for the guy who converted as in my opinion he's offering a very good service and very helpful and he does various other cameras as well). The NEX is seriously getting better and better in the recent years, not to mention they have Full Frame. Also low light performance is quite good (not just the A7S which is designed for low light). Also some models have EVF (like the NEX-6) and focus peeking with up to 9.3x magnification, both very useful for manual focusing, which we do 99% of the time :) Also some of the AF NEX lenses seem to be an OK performer in UV (my personal finding is the 30mm f2.8 is only approx 2/3 stop slower in UV than the Domiplan 50mm... which is not bad IMHO), which means in bright sunlight you can easily snap portraits with them (if you want to...). Not to mention the small size and weight! My main reason to switch from A77 to the NEX line was the much more lightweight travelling options :) Also Nikon's are rumoured to have Sony sensors in them (so far I know the NEX-6 and the D7000 shares the same sensor design with the NEX-6 having on-chip PDAF). My only wish about the NEX cameras that they were Pentax (as in my heart I am a Pentaxian :D).

 

To show their versatility here's a snap of my cameras with an EL-Nikkor and a Nikon E-Series lens... aren't they beautiful? :)

 

http://clancode.hu/pixtore/cameraporn.jpg

Link to comment

For some, Bjørn. Not for all. B)

I can use EVF well enough for UV(note) (or other) shooting, but I don't particularly like the sea-sicky feeling it gives me.

My little Nikon 1 V3 came with an EVF, but I found I liked using Live View more and finally took it off.

 

And focus peaking is another interesting feature which some shooters like and some don't.

Focus peaking makes me nuts because, like, it "gets in the way of" detail and I feel like I can't see what the lens is doing.

Other folks absolutely swear by it.

 

Fortunately we have many, many choices for UV/IR conversions these days.

I was so happy to get more info about using a Canon broadband (above). It never make a lick of sense to me why a Canon shouldn't be as convertible as any other DSLR or Mirrorless camera having a CMOS sensor.

 

I've enjoyed Alex H's work with the Nexi and now we have Timber's enthusiasm for them. I have plans to pick one up because of its FFD which will be nice for a couple of the lenses I've snagged off Ebay which have FFDs too short for my current Pentax & Nikon broadbands. And it's time to retire my G1 broadband in favor of an improved sensor.

 

(note) I should have mentioned that this is accomplished with "UV torch in hand" to illuminate the subject.

Link to comment

I was so happy to get more info about using a Canon broadband (above). It never make a lick of sense to me why a Canon shouldn't be as convertible as any other DSLR or Mirrorless camera having a CMOS sensor.

 

Well, one of the reasons is that Canon makes its own sensors, while other manufacturers use Sony full-frame and APS-C sensors in at least some of their cameras. So people were not able to assume anything about Canon's like we do about Sony, Pentax and some Nikon: "they have same sensors so they must perform at least similar"

Link to comment

I count at least three converted Canon owners among our members: ahrneely, Jolly Roger and davesum (there may be others I missed).

Perhaps we can get some practical comparisons from them.

Link to comment

Problem with EVFs for UV is you often can't see anything because of the low UV levels. The poor EVF runs at maximum amplification and generates massive amount of noise instead. I'm only too familiar with this issue when I do UV video. If there is an optical finder you stand a much better chance of seeing the scene.

 

If the camera only has a rear LiveView, there are handling issues as well.

Link to comment

I count at least three converted Canon owners among our members: ahrneely, Jolly Roger and davesum (there may be others I missed).

Thanks, JD. I didn't realize. Hard to keep track of all cameras owned by members. I would really like to see more photos from Canon conversions.

 

Well, one of the reasons is that Canon makes its own sensors...

Granted. But I just didn't think underlying CMOS "structure" could vary all that much. I suppose the designs can vary for microlenses, back lighting, and so forth. I suppose I do wonder why Canon just doesn't use Sony sensors like so many other manu but that is irrelevant for UV.

Link to comment

Granted. But I just didn't think underlying CMOS "structure" could vary all that much. I suppose the designs can vary for microlenses, back lighting, and so forth. I suppose I do wonder why Canon just doesn't use Sony sensors like so many other manu but that is irrelevant for UV.

 

We do not know that, but pigments used in bayer array or material used for microlenses can be different and have different properties.

Link to comment

Problem with EVFs for UV is you often can't see anything because of the low UV levels. The poor EVF runs at maximum amplification and generates massive amount of noise instead. I'm only too familiar with this issue when I do UV video. If there is an optical finder you stand a much better chance of seeing the scene.

 

If the camera only has a rear LiveView, there are handling issues as well.

If you can not see anything in EVF then what would you see in OVF? If I am not mistaken with the OVF you focus first and then add the filter if your camera is not permanently modified for UV (which I don't think many people have done). You have to use this method all the time, regardless of the UV levels, right? With EVF you can do the same, focus with normal lights if the UV levels are not enough. But if the UV levels are high enough then you have an advantage over the OVF as you will see where you focus, exactly. Even in low level of UV it can amplify a bit and while it will be noisy and/or low FPS you are still seeing something with the filters on, versus the OVF where you will never see anything if the filters are on. Not to mention with EVF you don't have to worry about light leakage from the viewfinder. I feel like I am the dEVFil's advocate now B)

 

I think the real question with EVF's are the quality of the EVF itself. When I first hesitated between the Sony A55 vs Nikon D5100 one of my main reasons to choose the Nikon was the very poor EVF of the A55... later the A77's EVF was so convincing that I sold the Nikon and bought the A77 (not to mention the more versatile adaptivity of lenses)... If you can try one of the Sonys with better EVF (A77, A99, NEX-6, NEX-7, A6000) then see what a difference they make vs the average EVF. I also had a chance to try the A38 and A3000 EVF... the difference is almost like an APSC mirror OVF vs a Full Frame Pentaprism.

Link to comment

I prefer internal filters. So the OVF is not blackened out at any time.

 

If you do UV video you cannot swap filters all the time, of course.

 

I am not totally against electronic view assistance, far from it, but it is not the panacea many tout it as being. It is new and quite immature technology with lots of possible improvements.

 

Cameras with only LV do introduce very awkward handling and that is a major reason I don't use them.

Link to comment

In practice I use only Live View for setting-up and focusing UV shots (either with or without the UV-pass filter in place).

It just seems easier somehow. The screen is bigger. B)

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...