Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Modified Stock DSLR vs. Fuji UVIR FinePix Pro


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

In the film days, police forensic units were the main users of ultraviolet photography. As digital photography started to replace film, forensic units felt left behind the times. In August 2006, Fuji started marketing a UV/IR version of their FinePix S3 Pro DSLR. The camera was aimed primarily at law enforcement, scientific, medical, and fine art users.

 

The camera was a stock FinePix S3 Pro that had been modified in-house to replace the internal ICF/antialias filter stack by a glass window transparent all the way from 280 nm to 2,500 nm (Schott glass type WG280). The camera was pricey, sold only to select clients, and didn’t give especially good results at shorter wavelengths, but allowed serious users to start experimenting with DSLR photography in the IR and UV, which resulted in publications showing that digital photography had come of age for these specialized modalities. This information percolated to enthusiasts who started exploring the field of creative IR photography as DSLR prices dropped and cameras that could be modified started to enter the second-hand market.

 

Fuji claimed that the camera was useful for ultraviolet photography down to 280 nm because they had replaced the ICF/antialias filter with a window that was transparent to 280 nm. However, as we all know, the ICF is not the only barrier to imaging in the UV, and even if they had eliminated the Bayer array and microlenses the range would not have extended below 340 nm.

 

I compared the near UV performance of the legendary FinePix S3 Pro UVIR to my modified Canon T1i. I posted results at: http://uvirimaging.com/2016/07/02/modified-stock-dslrs-vs-uvir-finepix-pro-which-one-wins-at-uv/

 

Cheers,

 

David

www.UVIRimaging.com

Link to comment

Hi David,

 

I have the IS-Pro which is the 'upgrade' to your S3 UVIR, as far as I am aware this was always advertised as being responsive down to only 380nm rather than 280nm, it certainly states that on DPreview where they reviewed the camera back in 2007.

Other tests like yours have been done if you're interested, Tetley and Young have some papers from 2009 that cover this, you will be particularly interested in:

Tetley and Young, 2009, Digital Infrared and Ultraviolet Photography using Advanced Camera Services Modified Equipment

 

to summarise the article, the authors find a Nikon D3 converted to UV by ACS (a UK conversion centre) to have approx 5 stops better UV response than the Fuji, however they also note the white balance of the Nikon means it records data mostly in the red channel while the Fuji also manages blue

 

the blue shift could correspond to higher UVA only being recorded, as this appears to record in the blue channel more readily than the deeper UV wavelengths

Link to comment

Hello David - and congratulations on your book! It is nice to see folks writing books about UV photography these days. Thank you for mentioning UVP on your website and in your book.

 

Both Bjørn & I (any other UVP members??) had that S3 Pro UVIR. I loved that camera for the fotos I got from it which were made unfiltered. There was an interesting and perhaps unique "look" to their false colour. But this camera was a huge pain to use. I would become so annoyed with it that I wanted to literally throw it away. Being not a particularly patient person, I finally sold it. :D

 

What do you base your 340 nm range result on? It was never clear that my Fuji could reach below 360 nm or so. But I have no actual spectral measurements to go on.

Link to comment

Note that to determine in which channels the various converted cameras record, we must use a tool such as Raw Digger or Dcraw. These tools show that while red is usually predominant in the brighter areas when Nikons record UV under a broadband UV-pass filter there are also significant amounts of UV recorded in the blue & green channels.

 

The missing information is how the Bayer filters affect UV capture in Nikons versus in the Fuji. Do the cameras both use the same Bayer dyes?

Link to comment

Fuji S3 in the special 'UVIR Limited Edition' was specified to reach 350 nm. Says so on the box it came in ... I have verified in direct A/B testing that Fuji has got the specification right. There is very little to observe at 340 nm with this camera.

 

I still keep my S3Pro because it can deliver excellent false-colour IR images, with a colour vibrancy even its successor the Fuji S5Pro (broad-band modified) is hard put to equal or surpass. Apart from this single aspect, the camera is an operational nightmare if you use lenses with focus shift UV-Vis (or Vis-IR), as the LiveView implementation is for all practical purposes useless. It also devours batteries with an insatiable appetite. Its EXIF data output is highly restricted thus automatically identifying lenses etc. from these fragments of information is not easy. Currently I'm working on the processing work flow that - hopefully - should allow the S3 to be replaced by my S5, a camera with a lot of advantages in terms of features and applicability. I'm not there yet, though.

Link to comment

Well, I commend your tenacity in dealing with this camera! I can't say the same about myself. :D

 

Bjørn, when did you ever believe anything written on the box??? But I believe you about the 350nm. My memories of my S3Pro-UVIR have grown dim. (I hope not from exposure to excess UV.)

Link to comment

Hi!

 

Thanks everyone for the comments. The 280 nm claim is based on historical research about the initial release of the S3 Pro UVIR. I am aware that Fuji amended this relatively soon afterwards in their marketing material. As a development engineer, I can feel the pain that the sensors guy at Fuji must have felt looking at what the guys in marketing had claimed :)

 

My 340 nm best-case estimate comes from the thickness of the silicon bulk in the S3's sensor. However, the bottleneck surely happened before the sensor, so a 380 nm practical limit sounds very reasonable.

 

I too hated the usability on the S3, and it went back on eBay soon after I tested it against my T1i diy conversion. If anyone is interested, I can dig the original images, although I think the point is mute by now. Thank you Jonny for the paper reference. I'll check it out.

 

Cheers,

 

David

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...