Hello from India

[Sai]

Hello Members of UVP!

 

I'm enthused to be a part of the UVP Community.

 

I'm a research scholar in the field of Biology and my area of research is Ecology. I'm interested in studying the floral pigment patterns under UV. Being a Geek, I have basic experience in photography and a newbie in regards to UV photography.

 

I'm just setting up a UV capable imaging setup in my lab using the various guides provided in this forum. I would like to receive your collective guidance and help in building the same. I'm still on the fence to convert either an old D70/ D40 or new Mirrorless camera, I'm open for suggestions.

 

Found a local astrophotography specialist who could perform the full spectrum conversion by ONLY removing the internal filter and NOT adding a fused silica filter. Will this raise any issues? Otherwise I'll have to import a converted camera.

 

I will be using this camera outdoors under plenty of sunlight to photograph flowers from an optimal distance allowed by the lens.

 

My draft setup so far, as follows:

 

1. Full Spectrum Camera - Old Nikon D70/D40 (or) New Mirroless Camera

 

2. UV Lens - Novoflex Novoflexar 35mm f/3.5 (from eBay) -

budget build

(or) Nikon 105mm f/4.5 UV-Rayfract -

no compromise build

 

3. UV Filter - Baader U-Venus Filter 2"

 

4. Filter Holder - Nikon AF-3 Gelatin Filter Holder (52 mm)

 

5. Lens Adapters - M42 to DSLR for Novoflexar 35mm f/3.5 (or) Nikon FTZ mount adapter for UV-Rayfract

 

6. UV Source - 365 nm MTE UV Torch (or) modify a xenon lamp(s) (no experience and read it was a risky DIY)

 

7. Stepper rings - 49-52mm stepepr ring to mount Baader U-Venus filter to the Nikon AF-3 Gelatin Filter Holder

 

8. White Balancing Standard - X-rite ColorChecker Passport Photo 2 (or) 5" Spectralon ® White Balance Reflectance Target

 

 

Thank you for your time and please feel free to add, correct and to provide your valuable suggestions.

 

Regards,

Sai

[nfoto]

Most welcome to the UVP community. I hope you will find a lot of assistance and valuable information from our members.

 

Converting a DSLR without adding a neutral (glass or quartz) window over the sensor makes the latter quite susceptible to dirt besides being difficult to clean properly. Infinity focus will be off unless you have restored the register distance of the optical system, however for botanical work this is not always required as most interest will be for close subjects assumedly.

 

The D40x is a very good candidate for UV photography if its 10 MPix output suffices. I used it as my main workhorse unit for years. However, using a newer mirrorless camera might be advantageous as they offer better opportunities to mount various lenses of different brands because a plethora of mount adapters exist.

 

If your lab can afford this, a UV-Nikkor/Rayfact 105mm f/4.5 is *the* lens to get. Starting out with say an old EL-Nikkor 80mm f/5.6 (metal mount, not the newer plastic version) in a suitable helicoid is much cheaper and should be very useful as well, albeit a less elegant solution. A good Noflexar or similar 35/3.5 lens also comes in handy.

 

There are many options to get an optimised UV filter stack however the Baader U (last generation) is the easiest approach. I am not convinced it should be mounted via the flip-out holder as light leaks might be introduced. If rapid filter exchanges are required, one can use a bayonet thread on the lens and a mating part for the filter; for example, the very versatile K-ring set (K-3 on lens, K-2 + filter/stepring; K-ring sets are easily found on eBay etc.). Do note the Baader filter is 48mm, the Noflexar 49mm, and the UV-Nikkor/Rayfact is 52mm filter size. For the El-Nikkor 80, you will need a 34.5-(48 or 52)mm step ring.

 

If sunlight is plentiful and you wish to work outdoors, perhaps a UV-capable flash is not required.

 

White PTFE (Teflon) is very useful for setting "UV white" balance. I also use the Colorchecker passport to the same end.

 

Finally, I do have high hopes for additions to our ever-growing list of botanicals seen in UV.

[Sai]

I am not convinced it should be mounted via the flip-out holder as light leaks might be introduced. If rapid filter exchanges are required, one can use a bayonet thread on the lens and a mating part for the filter; for example, the very versatile K-ring set (K-3 on lens, K-2 + filter/stepring; K-ring sets are easily found on eBay etc.)

 

Thank you for your suggestion, I'll look into it.

 

Alternatively, Can I use a Manfrotto XUME Magnetic Filter holder (49mm) and use a step ring (48-49mm) to mount the Baader filter for easy switching between UV and VIS spectrum photographs? Is it advisable? I will be taking both UV and VIS spectrum pictures for my subject.

 

Can you please also suggest a band-pass filter to capture VIS image? Based on what I read from Dr. Klauss Schmitt's blog (http://photographyof...flected-uv.html), I am considering Schott S8612 52mm x 2mm filter, but I'm confused as it still allows some of UV to pass through it.

 

https://www.schott.c...jun-2017-en.pdf

 

 

If sunlight is plentiful and you wish to work outdoors, perhaps a UV-capable flash is not required.

 

I might also need to work indoors if the weather doesn't cooperate. In that case, is the 365 nm MTE UV Torch(es) plenty enough for reflected UV photography or should I try modifying old Xenon flashes for UV output?

 

Finally, I do have high hopes for additions to our ever-growing list of botanicals seen in UV.

 

Thank you very much for your kind words. You are an inspiration.

[dabateman]

A mirrorless camera will allow you to use many different diverse lens, especially since it sounds like you want a Nikon Z-mount camera. However, it seems ONLY the Z5 will work for UV. The Z6 and Z7 should be avoided.

 

An older Nikon might work for you. but you will be restricted on your lenses based on the 46.5mm flange back distance. But if you can get the UV Nikkor than it will obviously work on the older Nikon DSLR.

 

The EL80 f5.6 lens is excellent for floral UVA subjects so you can save a couple thousand dollars with it. But you will need a mount, a helicoid and a filter adapter.

 

The Baader venus u is an excellent filter. However it is a little fragile. So care must be taken in handling it. It 1mm thick UG11 glass with optimized coatings to block infrared light. The alternative would be to get 2mm S8612 and 2mm U360 as a filter stack for your lens. Or 2mm U340 if you want deeper UV, paired with the S8612.

 

The cheapest light option would be a 365nm Convoy flashlight. But its mostly monochromatic. A flash will give you better tones. The Canon 199A flash you may still be able to find and its easy to convert. Yes other Chinese flashguns may also be good, but can be deadly to convert. You need to stay away from the capacitors or know how to properly discharge them.

 

If you do go with the old converted Nikon, then the EL80 might be a better lens as you can adjust the helicoid so that the lens can fully work with out coverglass on your sensor.

 

[nfoto]

As to UV/IR cut to allow only visible light, the Baader UV/IR Cut of course comes to mind. If you, however, use this filter on a modified camera you will get strong reddish hues overlaying the image, thus is preferable to combine with say S8612 to tame the response to more resemblance of a stock camera. Still, using the Colorchecker Passport or similar to set up a session colour balance is recommended. Photo Ninja has this feature easily conducted and probably other programs as well.

 

The Baader U is quite fragile and I would not be comfortable with it held in place by magnets. Much preferable to use a quick-release bayonet mount as I described in the earlier post.

 

There are several inexpensive flash units which can be modified to output UV by removing internal UV blocking filters/windows. A flash has a much wider spectral range than the bandwidth-limited LED torches.

[ulf]

I have used Xume filter holders successfully for several years and my feeling is that as long as you are not carrying around the camera with the filter always attached there is no risk with them.

The only situation when a Xume filter ring would get off from the lens ring is if you rather violently bump the filter against something. That is not good for the lens either.

 

The main advantage with Xume filter mounting is the quick and efficient changing of filters. I have dropped more filters to the ground when using them with the filter thread alone.

After a photo shoot I always store my filters separately, but when moving short distances between spots they can remain on the lens.

As I change between many different filters during my shoots the Xume system is very nice for me. I often carry some twenty different filters to change between.

These are about half of them: https://www.ultravio...attach_id=15567

If you intend to use only a few filters or carry around your camera by the filter Birnas approach must be better.

[Sai]

 

The Baader venus u is an excellent filter. However it is a little fragile. So care must be taken in handling it. It 1mm thick UG11 glass with optimized coatings to block infrared light. The alternative would be to get 2mm S8612 and 2mm U360 as a filter stack for your lens. Or 2mm U340 if you want deeper UV, paired with the S8612.

 

 

Thank you for your valuable input, I'll look into U360 and U340 2mm lenses for its better durability.

[Sai]

There are several inexpensive flash units which can be modified to output UV by removing internal UV blocking filters/windows. A flash has a much wider spectral range than the bandwidth-limited LED torches.

 

Thank you for your response. I'll look into available tutorials in the forum to safely convert Xenon flash units.

 

In regards to quick-release bayonet mount would any generic brand provide good sealing without any leakage or should I go with specific brands/models? Can you please suggest, I've never used one before.

[colinbm]

I don't know what this is about the Baader U being fragile. Anybody can break a filter glass with rough handling. I have handled my BaaderU roughly before & it hasn't broken.

[Sai]

As I change between many different filters during my shoots the Xume system is very nice for me. I often carry some twenty different filters to change between.

These are about half of them: https://www.ultravio...attach_id=15567

If you intend to use only a few filters or carry around your camera by the filter Birnas approach must be better.

 

Wow, that is a nice collection of filters. Since I'm just starting off, I'll mostly be using 2mm S8612 and a UV band-pass filter. Thanks for sharing your experience with XUME filter holder, I look forward to using it later when I use multiple filters.

[Cadmium]

The main advantage to me about U-360... S8612 stacks is the versatility.

If you have U-360 2mm and S8612 2mm and perhaps U-330 1.5mm, then you can swap them around, stacking the S8612 2mm for the other two, it saves money,

and using the U-360 alone for dual band, and even perhaps the S9612 for visual (some do),

and you then can do 4 things, the S8612 2mm being versatile to use with various other stacks.

I do that. Quite handy.

Of course the Baader U works fine also, but only for one thing. I don't find it particularity fragile myself, except when it comes to slugs and snails,

so just make sure you put your Baader U back where it is suppose to be after you conclude your photo shoot.

That is an inside joke, ask Andrea about that story...

[ulf]

Wow, that is a nice collection of filters. Since I'm just starting off, I'll mostly be using 2mm S8612 and a UV band-pass filter. Thanks for sharing your experience with XUME filter holder, I look forward to using it later when I use multiple filters.

A filter stack based on S8612, 2mm and a UV-band pass filter is a very good choice. Between U-340 and U-360, 2mm, I would select U-360 as it gives a bit faster exposure times.

 

All types of glass materials tend to corrode over time, getting a hazy surface. Some glass types are more sensitive for this.

You might have seen this at drinking glasses stored for a long time without being used.

 

That corrosion is mainly caused by humidity and also speeded up by elevated temperatures that I suspect you see frequently in India.

Several glass materials used for optical filters are sensitive to this kind of corrosion.

 

If caught early it is easy to prevent damage by cleaning the filters. There are several tips on this forum how to do that.

Even more corroded filters can be saved by a light polishing with cerium oxide, but it is better to take care of them in time, before the process has gone that far.

Storing the filters in a dry cool environment delays the corrosion substantially.

 

AR-coated filters are at least partially protected against this problem, but they are rare and more expensive.

I have few AR-coated filters for my UV-photography and the maintenance of the uncoated is rather easy, even if I have many filters.

 

I second what Cadmium wrote above.

[dabateman]

I honestly think the Baader venus u is the best filter for UV photography. Its thin and offers beautiful contrasty images.

However, I don't recommend it for you because you stated:

"I'm interested in studying the floral pigment patterns under UV."

 

The Baader venus u gives you only one region in the UV spectrum. If you truly want to study the UV signature of flowers its best to have a couple filters which peak at different points into the UV spectrum.

Buying five 2mm thick ZWB1 filters will give you a peak max about 330nm and will not have IR leakage. Then a 2mm S8612 filter with 2mm U360 filter will give you the common UVA peak. A 1.5mm U330 with that 2mm S8612 will give you the lighter patterns into 400s. Then you may also want a BG3 or B370 or B410 filter. These can be alone or stacked. You will be able to get a good insight into the various features of your flowers with simple filters. Cheap Chinese version also exist, but your laboratory will need to have a UV spectrometer to verify their spectrum.

You wouldn't need a portable spectrometer to capture the reflectance from the flowers as you can quickly do it in 2D with the various filter sets.

Thus I don't recommend the Baader venus u filter for you. It will not give you enough information for a thesis or your studies and with the cost savings you can purchase many filters.

 

Also I am curious why you want a Nikon camera? Are they your favorite, if so then use that. Best to use what you're comfortable with. If not then there are many different camera options that might be available for you that are good for UV photography. Like the Sony A6000, or my favorite the Olympus cameras.

 

 

[Sai]

The main advantage to me about U-360... S8612 stacks is the versatility.

If you have U-360 2mm and S8612 2mm and perhaps U-330 1.5mm, then you can swap them around, stacking the S8612 2mm for the other two, it saves money,

and using the U-360 alone for dual band, and even perhaps the S9612 for visual (some do),

and you then can do 4 things, the S8612 2mm being versatile to use with various other stacks.

I do that. Quite handy.

 

Thank you for sharing your personal experience. Based on the suggestions from you, UlfW and dabateman, I have dropped Baader U and have included Hoya U-360 2mm, Hoya U-330 1.5mm and Schott S8612 2mm to the list of filters to be purchased.

 

Of course the Baader U works fine also, but only for one thing. I don't find it particularity fragile myself, except when it comes to slugs and snails,

so just make sure you put your Baader U back where it is suppose to be after you conclude your photo shoot.

That is an inside joke, ask Andrea about that story...

 

That seems like an interesting story. I would love to hear it if Andrea B. wills to share it with us.

[Sai]

A filter stack based on S8612, 2mm and a UV-band pass filter is a very good choice. Between U-340 and U-360, 2mm, I would select U-360 as it gives a bit faster exposure times.

 

Thank you, I have incorporated the suggested filter to my updated list.

 

All types of glass materials tend to corrode over time, getting a hazy surface. Some glass types are more sensitive for this.

You might have seen this at drinking glasses stored for a long time without being used.

 

That corrosion is mainly caused by humidity and also speeded up by elevated temperatures that I suspect you see frequently in India.

 

I will keep this in mind and check out the articles in the forum for its proper maintenance.

 

Your comment reminds me of a running joke here. We have three seasons in South India - summer, summer-er, summer-est

 

To store the lenses safely, I need to invest in a 'jewellery box' type box.

[Sai]

I honestly think the Baader venus u is the best filter for UV photography. Its thin and offers beautiful contrasty images. However, I don't recommend it for you because you stated: "I'm interested in studying the floral pigment patterns under UV."

 

The Baader venus u gives you only one region in the UV spectrum. If you truly want to study the UV signature of flowers its best to have a couple filters which peak at different points into the UV spectrum. Buying five 2mm thick ZWB1 filters will give you a peak max about 330nm and will not have IR leakage. Then a 2mm S8612 filter with 2mm U360 filter will give you the common UVA peak. A 1.5mm U330 with that 2mm S8612 will give you the lighter patterns into 400s. Then you may also want a BG3 or B370 or B410 filter. These can be alone or stacked. You will be able to get a good insight into the various features of your flowers with simple filters.

 

Cheap Chinese version also exist, but your laboratory will need to have a UV spectrometer to verify their spectrum. You wouldn't need a portable spectrometer to capture the reflectance from the flowers as you can quickly do it in 2D with the various filter sets. Thus I don't recommend the Baader venus u filter for you. It will not give you enough information for a thesis or your studies and with the cost savings you can purchase many filters. Also I am curious why you want a Nikon camera? Are they your favorite, if so then use that. Best to use what you're comfortable with. If not then there are many different camera options that might be available for you that are good for UV photography. Like the Sony A6000, or my favorite the Olympus cameras.

 

Thank you very much for your thorough and insightful input for choosing the right lens combinations.

 

I have incorporated your suggestion to include U-360 and U-330 to use in combination with S8612. Regarding your later suggestion, I'm leaning more towards B-370 for its coverage of UV and IR.

 

Can the U-340 + S8612 combination replace the five 2mm ZWB1 for the lighter patterns at 400nm? Or is it better to stick with 5 ZWB1?

 

Will the 5 ZWB1 stack severely affect the exposure time?

 

Regarding the camera selection, I'm not restricted to Nikon and am open to suggestions. I have selected the Nikon so far based on the member inputs and reviews posted in the forum. I'm going for tired and tested builds that are already being used by members so that it is reliable and easy to replicate. In case anything fails while experimenting, I will lose time and money by trying to replace it.

 

I have familiarity with Nikon and Canon systems, regarding Sony A6000, I need to check the sensor sensitivity range post full spectrum conversion. Please share your suggestions on the same.

 

I will be buying an used camera in good condition and go for full spectrum conversion on the same. The primary cameras in the lab is shared my colleagues for VIS photography, thus the second hand purchase.

[Andy Perrin]

Several of us (including me) have been using Sony cameras for years now. I have a converted NEX-7, and an A7S mark 1. They work very well. I strongly recommend mirrorless cameras in general and Sony is nice because you can also set an in-camera UV white balance. Some people are annoyed by the menu system but I’m used to it and you can reassign most of the buttons to more convenient locations if they annoy you.

[ulf]

I have had a Sony A7III for about a year and am very pleased with the images it can produce.

There might be a potential problem with an internal IR monitoring LED in this model for high ISO settings or long exposure times.

The guy doing the conversion say that he has solved that problem. https://www.infrared...versions.co.uk/

I can confirm that my camera have no such problems even at max ISO and 30s

 

I came from a long line of Canon cameras where I begun a long time ago, last century.

The only thing I miss a bit from my former converted Canon EOS 60D is the articulated LCD-display and more traditional menu system.

The Sony has a sensor with very much less noise that my old EOS and the short back flange distance of a mirrorless is very useful.

 

The Sony menu system is very complex and annoying until you have learned to configure it to your special needs.

When those settings are established the camera is easy to use, but I fear every time i need to reconfigure to use the camera differently.

The A7III has almost two times as many settings as the three A7 mark I variants.

 

One nice thing with the A7III is that the internal image stabilising system works on any type lens, not only modern lenses with electronic communication with the camera body.

You set the focal length matching the used lens, manually in a menu.

This means that the possibility to hand hold for UV photography is better, even if you normally will need a tripod for closeups.

[dabateman]

I am most familiar with Olympus cameras. My current favorite is the Em5mk2, which I now have converted to full spectrum. It can see to 300nm with less noise than my Em1mk1. I don't have a good 280nm filter any more, so can't test lower.

A stock non-modified Olympus camera can see to 370nm. This was true for my 43rds E510, E3, and m43rds Em1mk1 and Em5mk2. Conversion to full spectrum improves sensitive at 370nm by 1 stop, and allows for UVB detection.

 

I believe Bernard's A6000 can also see to 300nm as shown here:

 

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4201-am-i-getting-an-image-at-303nm/

 

The Olympus Em5mk2 is my favorite as allow for in camera focus stacking, high resolution shot mode and the live composite mode allows for easy UV induced fluorescent light painting.

 

The Chinese zwb1 is equivalent to U340 and ug11. Its the cheapest way to get at 330nm peak without IR leakage at 8mm to 10mm thick. So its a different filtration goal. Yes 2mm u340 and S8612 will give you a UV image, but not significantly different than 2mm U360, which will have much faster shutter speeds.

 

Zwb1 is like u340 = ug11

Zwb2 is like u360 = ug1

Zwb3 is like u330 = ug5

ZB2 is like B370 = BG3

QB2 is like B410 = no schott equivalent I know

 

Sadly there is no alternative to the outstanding S8612.

 

I have had great luck with Chinese filters from ebay seller Tangsinuo

[Sai]

I am most familiar with Olympus cameras. My current favorite is the Em5mk2, which I now have converted to full spectrum. It can see to 300nm with less noise than my Em1mk1. I don't have a good 280nm filter any more, so can't test lower.

A stock non-modified Olympus camera can see to 370nm. This was true for my 43rds E510, E3, and m43rds Em1mk1 and Em5mk2. Conversion to full spectrum improves sensitive at 370nm by 1 stop, and allows for UVB detection.

 

I believe Bernard's A6000 can also see to 300nm as shown here:

 

https://www.ultravio...image-at-303nm/

 

The Olympus Em5mk2 is my favorite as allow for in camera focus stacking, high resolution shot mode and the live composite mode allows for easy UV induced fluorescent light painting.

 

The Chinese zwb1 is equivalent to U340 and ug11. Its the cheapest way to get at 330nm peak without IR leakage at 8mm to 10mm thick. So its a different filtration goal. Yes 2mm u340 and S8612 will give you a UV image, but not significantly different than 2mm U360, which will have much faster shutter speeds.

 

Zwb1 is like u340 = ug11

Zwb2 is like u360 = ug1

Zwb3 is like u330 = ug5

ZB2 is like B370 = BG3

QB2 is like B410 = no schott equivalent I know

 

Sadly there is no alternative to the outstanding S8612.

 

I have had great luck with Chinese filters from ebay seller Tangsinuo

 

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I'll find the eBay seller for ZWB1 filter.

[Sai]

Build Update: The local full spectrum conversion center has no experience with conversion of Sony/ Nikon Cameras (primarily an Astro-photography conversion centre) but can convert a Canon camera. The cost of importing (+ tax) the entire setup might exceed the allocated budget from my project.

 

I've contacted Kolari Vision to get an estimate of the cost of purchase/ conversion. If there are any other providers for the same, please advise.

 

 

I came from a long line of Canon cameras where I begun a long time ago, last century.

The only thing I miss a bit from my former converted Canon EOS 60D is the articulated LCD-display and more traditional menu system.

The Sony has a sensor with very much less noise that my old EOS and the short back flange distance of a mirrorless is very useful.

 

 

Can you please share your experience with you converted EOS 60D? Is the 60D's sensor reliable in capturing UV images similar to other well established systems?

[ulf]

Build Update: The local full spectrum conversion center has no experience with conversion of Sony/ Nikon Cameras (primarily an Astro-photography conversion centre) but can convert a Canon camera. The cost of importing (+ tax) the entire setup might exceed the allocated budget from my project.

 

I've contacted Kolari Vision to get an estimate of the cost of purchase/ conversion. If there are any other providers for the same, please advise.

 

 

 

Can you please share your experience with you converted EOS 60D? Is the 60D's sensor reliable in capturing UV images similar to other well established systems?

I have only practical experience with converted Canon and Sony cameras to compare with.

I would say that the EOS 60D was acceptable for such an old camera, but that my Sony A7III with it's BSI-sensor deliver images with substantially less noise.

 

The current models of Canon cameras has a sensor technology that lag after the competition with regards to noise.

My Sony was converted in the UK by https://www.infrared...versions.co.uk/

I am very pleased with the result.

 

They have both conversion service and converted cameras and might advise you a suitable camera.

 

Beside the conversion of my Sony camera I have no other relations with this company. I am just a happy customer.

I would recommend some kind of mirrorless camera type as that gives you more space for different lens mount adapters and no leakage via an optical viewfinder that you cannot use anyhow with filters on the lens.

Before I decided I called Allan on https://www.infrared...tact/4593495985 and discussed my needs.

[Sai]

I have only practical experience with converted Canon and Sony cameras to compare with.

I would say that the EOS 60D was acceptable for such an old camera, but that my Sony A7III with it's BSI-sensor deliver images with substantially less noise.

 

The current models of Canon cameras has a sensor technology that lag after the competition with regards to noise.

My Sony was converted in the UK by https://www.infrared...versions.co.uk/

I am very pleased with the result.

 

They have both conversion service and converted cameras and might advise you a suitable camera.

 

Beside the conversion of my Sony camera I have no other relations with this company. I am just a happy customer.

I would recommend some kind of mirrorless camera type as that gives you more space for different lens mount adapters and no leakage via an optical viewfinder that you cannot use anyhow with filters on the lens.

Before I decided I called Allan on https://www.infrared...tact/4593495985 and discussed my needs.

 

Thank you for sharing. I've contacted Alan regarding it.

[bvf]

 

My Sony was converted in the UK by https://www.infrared...versions.co.uk/

I am very pleased with the result.

 

They have both conversion service and converted cameras and might advise you a suitable camera.

 

 

Alan did my A6000 conversion too. Indeed, it was him who recommended the A6000 to me rather than using an EOSM3.