PrimaLuce Nikon Z5 Full-spectrum camera review

[Stefano]

UV and IR are almost opposite. Bright skies and dark vegetation in UV, dark skies and bright vegetation in IR.

 

With my Soligor lens I can stop down all the way to f/22 in UV and have very nice images (a tripod is necessary at f/22). In IR I tried f/22 and you can clearly see diffraction. I should test this better, but I think that beyond f/8 or at most f/11 I lose sharpness in IR. So probably your choice of using f/8 avoided both the hotspot and the diffraction blur.

[Andy Perrin]

Stefano, yes, in fact it's almost always worth stopping down in UV because you have to use a tripod anyhow (if you want better than snapshot quality), so may as well take advantage of the lack of diffraction by stopping down.

[Bill De Jager]

UV and IR are almost opposite. Bright skies and dark vegetation in UV, dark skies and bright vegetation in IR.

 

I'll add to that dark water in IR, bright water in UV. Birna pointed that out on her old site long ago, with photos to demonstrate. I did find one exception in my own work; compare the water in post #1 and post #7: https://www.ultravio...__fromsearch__1

 

On the other hand, concrete is relatively light colored in both. What I find interesting is that galvanized steel is surprisingly dark in IR, which I expect is why it can get so hot when it's in the sun. Of course these are all the near portions of the UV and IR spectra, not the outlying portions.

[Stefano]

Water usually takes the color of the sky, especially at shallow angles. In your images it was reflecting the sky and the background. In IR, especially after ~900 nm it starts to absorb a lot, while it stays relatively transparent in UV.

[nfoto]

In principle the international border between Norway and Sweden is closed these days, due to Covid-19 travel restrictions. Well, the principle works on trust. This is the border crossing point nearest to me. The road was open. Good on me, as I had to drive into Sweden to turn my car around -- the road gets narrow with the deep snow.

 

The 25-50mm f/4 Nikkor does excellent service on my PrimaLuce Z5.

 

 

(to non-Nordic viewers: the nearest sign says "doesn't apply to authorised traffic" so I interpreted the text in a liberal manner)

[colinbm]

Nice

[dabateman]

For someone that reminds me of the person in Maine (USA), who's driveway goes into Canada mid way through. As the Canadian border is also COVID closed. But its just hard to actually do that.

[nfoto]

A tangential note from this shooting session: we are dealing with "false colours". So much false is false or can something false still be right? And is there a "correct" approach to visualising a motif?

 

To illustrate, here are two alternatives to the frame already posted.

 

(Fisheye-Nikkor 8mm f/2.8)

 

 

(Voigtländer 90mm f/3.5 APO)

 

 

Ideally one should process the files and end up being satisfied with the outcome, that is my general idea. As the "falseness" of these colours can be unstable, even starting from the same point and following a general approach can easily lead to different results.

[nfoto]

Temperatures still are not conducive to rapid spring development and the occurrence of the first flowers in my neighbourhood. Nights are well below freezing and even on the occasions we encounter some sunshine, it's still rather nippy so ice patterns form everywhere on puddles.

 

As always, this is a time to find the better optics for UV or IR work later in the season when spring eventually arrives and dare I say, even summer?

 

Wide lenses or zoom optics are a scarce commodity in UV land. There are several 21mm lenses (Panagor, Tamron) which can do pretty well though, and they have the added benefit they do focus to infinity. I am partial to the Panagor because it is able to deliver sharper UV images than the Tamron despite the obvious similarities in optical design.

 

No need to test the 21 Panagor then. Instead I attached the more unlikely candidate, Zoom-Nikkor 28-50mm f/3.5, which apparently could pass some UV judged from the first preliminary tests. This lens, and other candidates, are helped by my use of a DIY rear-mounted filter box for the Z cameras. Thus using the Baader U is a breeze.

 

The 28-50 Nikkor indeed delivered UV images, with a response around -3EV compared to the UV-Nikkor. Not too bad. There is very little chromacity to explore in UV these days, even the UV-Nikkor mostly returns near monochrome UV images.

 

A frozen puddle discloses nice frost patterns in UV, Set to f=45mm, the following emerged,

 

 

Dumped junk to contrast the surrounding thickets of grey alder indicated the 28-50 had a lot of field curvature at f=28 for UV work. The corners are definitively going soft even at f/11. Actually this enhances the "ancient" impression of the photo.

 

 

I did concurrent work in IR using a number of zoom lenses. The dreaded hot-spot issue always is to be anticipated. It turned out the AFD 70-180mm f/4.5.5,6 Zoom-Micro-Nikkor by and large avoided the troublesome spots. A close-up of the ice crystals is here,

 

 

The 70-180 did the alders in a different manner, of course. I went for a more dreamy IR impression this time (B+W 092).

 

 

With the longer 400mm f/3.5 Nikkor ED-IF, strongly graphic contrasts are easy to achieve in IR. Here again the alders, now seen through the 400mm lens with B+W 093 filter (internal).

 

 

An enjoyable shooting session in other words. All conducted with camera vantage point within a square of 4x4m.

[nfoto]

Apparently only IR is the viable field of application at this time of the year. Still no clear signs of true spring and accordingly, no pretty (or even ugly) early flowers to be seen and documented.

 

From today's shooting with the über-wide Laowa 11mm f/4.5 lens equipped with a Hoya R72 filter. A nearby thicket discloses the item below,

 

 

Tentatively I identified the model as 1974 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28. Authorities with better insight into the finer arts of American car-making suggest however this is a '75 or '76 A-type Camaro. Whatever the actual model version, the car is rusty and it cries out for wide-angle captures.

[SteveE]

What is the Borg cube like thing sitting on the rocky hill?

[nfoto]

Not sure what you refer to, but there is a dilapidated shack in the background?

[nfoto]

I have a few selected vantage points for test shooting long lenses. This is the recent favourite, the scenery of which includes the local river Glomma with riparian forest and well-established farmland and mixed forests on the far side of the river. Distance to the nearest farm building is about 1.5km.

 

I shot IR with the old Zoom-Nikkor 200-600mm f/9.5 AIS (from '82) and the impressively long and even older Nikkor ED 800mm f/8 ('ca '75). The 200-600 requires 86mm filters, whilst the 800 lens head can either use large (and expensive) 122mm filters in front, or 52mm filters in a rear drawer in its focusing adapter AU-1 if the filter is sufficiently slim. So no stock Baader U will qualify, but my guess is that a reseated Baader in a 52mm ring might just fit in. In a pinch, I can use a rear filter box for either lens but then I'll lose CPU communication lens-camera. I do prefer to have the complete shooting data available when the captures are evaluated later.

 

Anyway, here is a farm scene in IR, going from 200mm through 400 and 600 to end in 800mm.

 

200mm:

 

400mm:

 

600mm:

 

All the above with the Zoom-Nikkor set to f/11 and the presented focal length. Filter B+W 093.

 

To go the whole way, let us have a look through the 800 Nikkor (taken a few days earlier),

 

Again, lens at f/11 and B+W 093.

 

While the old zoom lens does remarkably well and has no hot spot whatsoever, the elusive 800/8 ED is in a sharpness class of its own.

 

For those wondering about the 800, here it is on a Sachtler tripod. The optics are long focal (not 'tele') thus the length is 0.8m and then one has to add the lens shade and the FTZ adapter.

 

 

I find it substantial food for thought that such ancient optics can perform so well.

[dabateman]

What is the Borg cube like thing sitting on the rocky hill?

 

Image 2 in post 134, that looks like a water storage tank.

[Stefano]

Image 2 in post 134, that looks like a water storage tank.

I agree, my granddad has a similar one.

[colinbm]

Fantastic lens Birna.

[nfoto]

To complete the picture, here is the UV capture of the farm scene done with the Novoflex "Fernobjektiv" 40cm f/5.6. Again, using f/11.

 

 

Among the interesting differences, the less obvious one is the disappearance in UV of the large discolouration on the end wall of the barn.

 

The false colour rendition is very similar to what the UV-Nikkor delivered and exposure is compatible as well.

 

 

However, for this open landscape, 105mm focal is way too short. Thus treat this just as a UV reference.

[colinbm]

This is good Birna.

 

These filter drawers you use, are they T2 threaded for telescopes ?

I am trying to find some in M42 thread to attach to M42 lens ?

[nfoto]

The internal drawers in the Nikkors are either 39mm or 52mm. My DIY design uses either 1/2" or 2" drawers, see below.

 

 

A 52mm filter without the retainer ring will also fit. The front of the box has "F" mount, the rear carries the "Z" bayonet.

[colinbm]

Thank Birna

[nfoto]

Time to wrap up the test shooting, perhaps?

 

My "farmland target" now seen through the eyes of the 360-1200mm f/11 Zoom-Nikkor ED, set to f/22 and 1200mm. IR rendition. At such focal extremes, the distance to the subject and the ambient conditions in conjunction with time of the day are limiting factors to attainable resolution more than the optics themselves. Degradation by diffraction factors into the final outcome, however less than one might imagine in advance. Air turbulence acts as a diffusing filter not even penetrable by IR.

 

 

One might wonder, why bother at all? To which the standard answer is, because I can. And am curious about how it turns out.

[nfoto]

Naturally, to every attempt at IR, there should be some UV as well. I found it hard to get anything useful in UV at focal lengths > 400mm, save the class of 1000mm mirror lenses. However these add their own issues and I generally try to avoid using them.

 

The UV-Nikkor, being an exceptionally sharp lens, is a tempting candidate for adding teleconverters. The old TC-200 (2X) turns the UV-Nikkor into a 210mm f/9 lens yet should be useful for landscapes? I decided to make a few tests. Unfortunately the TC-200 has no pass-through contacts for the CPU of the UV-Nikkor so I have to keep field notes to secure EXIF data. Not my favourite task.

 

This was taken with the UV-Nikkor at f/4.5 ie. the overall f-number is f/9. Apart from the softening impact of distance to UV, the outcome is entirely useful.

 

 

However, should you be mindless enough to set the master lens to f/32, the combined package now is f/64 and then each and every dust speck on the camera sensor shows up, as witnessed by the slight crop below.

 

 

I immediately decided to deliver the PrimaLuce Z5 to my Nikon repair facility for a thorough spring cleaning Furthermore, do note that stopped this far down, there is a UV hot spot present as well. Another reason from staying away from the smaller apertures.

[colinbm]

Love the IR images, sharp is the word....

[Andy Perrin]

>850nm IR tends to look sharper than expected due to the transparency of the Bayer allowing each pixel to effectively act as 4 subpixels. The sharpening effect is visible with a normal raw converter (as demonstrated here) but I think more could be done to effectively quadruple the pixel count by writing a converter to deliberately make use of the subpixels as if they were pixels. Another rainy day project for me.

[nfoto]

Let's hope for plenty of rain, then