Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Snag with Sony A7R in UV


Recommended Posts

In this post I bemoaned the demise of my full-spectrum Sony A6000:

 

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/4465-aaaaagh-im-full-spectrum-camera-less/page__gopid__44120#entry44120

 

I decided to buy a replacement from infraredcameraconversions.co.uk (Alan Burch), and took the opportunity to upgrade to a Sony A7R. I was excited at the prospect of having a full-frame full-spectrum camera and the prospect of post-processing being slowed down by having even more megapixels to move around and manipulate.

 

The A7R arrived yesterday. Initial tests showed it worked fine in IR and with a Baader U. But when I used my UV bandpass filters it was clear that the camera could not reach deeply into the UV. At 345nm it semed about half as sensitive as the A6000, and at 320nm about 1/6 as sensitive. This makes it unusable for UV TriColour as the sensitivity of the A6000 at 320nm is already pretty low.

 

Not clear what the reason is. The A7R is unusual in not having an Anti-Aliasing filter, and so the sensor cover plate may have ben modified in some way to compensate. Also Alan says the A7R sensor has an AR coating (which may be another result of having no AR filter).

 

So sadly I am returning the A7R and getting another A6000. It's a bit boring having two A6000s (assuming I get the old one fixed), but at least I know it works down to about 305nm.

 

BTW - I have updated the other post on the problem with the A6000. This may be of interest to you if you are using a Sony A6x00 camera.

Link to comment

Jonathan was also having issues.

He posted that the actual cover glass above the color filters is the problem. But only MaxMax is the place to switch that out for you.

 

Your other option is to get an Olympus Em5mk2. I don't like the flippy screen. But everything else is great.

 

Also now you can show me if the SvBony works in the dual mount adapter with your lenses. I am curious if it only covers m43rds or if the dual adapter stretches out to the ever so slightly larger APSC.

Link to comment

 

Your other option is to get an Olympus Em5mk2. I don't like the flippy screen. But everything else is great.

 

Also now you can show me if the SvBony works in the dual mount adapter with your lenses. I am curious if it only covers m43rds or if the dual adapter stretches out to the ever so slightly larger APSC.

 

 

Having 2 sets of adapters is enough for me, so I'll stick with Sony for full-spectrum.

 

Looking at the SvBony is next on my list (I'm just finishing an assessment of the Meritar). I can't judge the SvBony for distant shots because I'm awaiting the thin helicoid. But I've done some initial playing at the sub-metre range. I can get full APS-C coverage using the 28mm Lithagon, but the 50mm Focotar 2 gets clipped at the extreme corners. The Lithagon lens at the rear protrudes quite a bit so it is nearer to the SvBony than the Focotar is, and that probably explains why it is better in terms of coverage.

 

Image quality doesn't look very good though - but watch this space. Haven't looked at UV reach yet.

Link to comment

Interesting,

I look forward to seeing what you get. Also the further away from the sensor the SvBony is, the greater the reduction. If its 10mm away from the mount, it will push 0.4x

 

I think my dream full spectrum camera now might be the Pen-f. It has absolute color control with the color wheel and curves. Black and white with it is also quite fun with grain and vignetteing control. One day I might converted it to full spectrum. I just don't like flippy screens, much prefer tilting in axis screens. Also don't know how it will perform, as different 20Mpixel Sony sensor than the 16Mpixel I am used to.

Link to comment
I hope my Canon EOS M is useful down to about 310 nm, as deep as the Soligor goes. I only have the sensor coverglass above the sensor. But first I have to upgrade my cardboard/black tape filters and get some S8612.
Link to comment
Bernard, the A7III cover glass on the sensor is a huge blocker of UV, and it wouldn't surprise me if the A7R is the same. If Alan Burch has a broken A6000 sensor (with the coverglass present) I'd be happy to test it and measure the transmission of the coverglass. I'm guessing it is simply a thin glass one, which would explain why it is blocking less of the UV, but it would be nice to test that.
Link to comment

I hope my Canon EOS M is useful down to about 310 nm, as deep as the Soligor goes.

 

I looked through my oldest TriColour photographs, but it looks like I'd already switched to the A6000 by then, so unfortunately I can't tell you how the EOS M would perform through the 315BP20 filter.

Link to comment
I have noticed that my A900 (Lifepixel conv.) is also very weak below 340. I wonder if it could be a similar issue. Just what is this cover glass? I gather it is different from the reseau, the anti-aliasing filter and the hot mirror--there seems to be quite a stack of stuff on these sensors!
Link to comment

 

Just what is this cover glass? I gather it is different from the reseau, the anti-aliasing filter and the hot mirror--there seems to be quite a stack of stuff on these sensors!

 

 

As I understand it, it's to physically protect the sensor. It's an integral part of the sensor unit and can't be removed. If I'm wrong, I'm sure there'll be someone along soon to corect me.

Link to comment
MaxMax does remove it, but it isn't normally removed. It is glued on top I think, with a narrow gap between it and the actual sensor.
Link to comment
The cover glass is to hermetically seal & protect the sensor with its CFA & microlenses & the very delicate gold wire connections. It is adhered to the ceramic sensor base. Some cover glass, like Canon are easier to remove, while Sigma Foveon have been very difficult to remove.
Link to comment

Yes the cover glass is the layer that isn't removed really. People whom monochrome convert their cameras try to remove it with solvent or blow torch.

 

The newer cameras seem to have anti reflectance AR coatings on the coverglass which block UV below 350nm.

 

Seems like very few cameras see into UVB. Sony A6000 and Olympus Em5mk2 and Em1mk1 are exceptions.

 

My old E510 can't see 300nm very well.

Link to comment

The newer cameras seem to have anti reflectance AR coatings on the coverglass which block UV below 350nm.

That’s a problem for us. Does this mean that removing the coverglass will be necessary for converting future cameras? It is a very delicate operation.

Link to comment

That’s a problem for us. Does this mean that removing the coverglass will be necessary for converting future cameras? It is a very delicate operation.

I don't think so, at least not for most of us.

 

This is mainly an issue when doing very special photography with dedicated narrow-band filters and light-sources below 345nm.

Then the best option is a monochrome converted camera to get the most of the sensor's declining sensitivity.

 

The coverglass-coatings rob the sensor's efficiency, but not that much in the bands mostly important for most UV-photography.

As the sensitivity is dramatically higher in the upper end, all light there will drown any image components in the shorter end.

 

It can be a problem if you seek to take proof of concept-pictures of short wavelength LEDs, but such motifs quickly become rather boring.

 

It is good to know that there are some cameras like the Sony A6000 and Olympus Em5mk2 and Em1mk1 that are exceptions.

Those are useable for a few of us like David and Bernhard that are doing interesting things with narrow band filters.

 

For most of us the benefits of low noise as from modern BSI-sensors is likely much more important.

Link to comment
I know my camera can see at least down to 345 nm, since my 340-345 nm LED is visible and appears green as expected. My Chinese BG39 filter doesn’t go that deep anyway, so for now it’s the limiting factor (my Soligor, if it’s the same as yours, should reach 310 nm, and I think the sensor too with the coverglass should go that low).
Link to comment
Andy Perrin
If the issue is an anti reflective coating on the cover glass, it may be possible to dissolve the coating without removing the glass itself (which is there for good reason!).
Link to comment
Andy Perrin
On lenses it is problematic because the surface quality matters. I’m not sure if it matters so close to the sensor, though.
Link to comment
The closer you get to the sensor, the sharper the shadows projected by dust/imperfections are. So I think quality does matter, at least up to a certain point.
Link to comment

The A7R arrived yesterday. Initial tests showed it worked fine in IR and with a Baader U. But when I used my UV bandpass filters it was clear that the camera could not reach deeply into the UV. At 345nm it semed about half as sensitive as the A6000, and at 320nm about 1/6 as sensitive. This makes it unusable for UV TriColour as the sensitivity of the A6000 at 320nm is already pretty low.

 

 

Question: The BaaderU peak is at 350 nm so how could there be a big difference at 345 nm?

 

Question: Is there some kind of dust remover in the A7R which might not have been removed?

(I should know the answer to this question given that I have a converted A7R,

but I have long forgotten details about this camera given that I no longer use it.)

Link to comment

Question: The BaaderU peak is at 350 nm so how could there be a big difference at 345 nm?

Probably yes. As we know, our cameras see the longer UV wavelengths more than the shorter ones, so even with a filter peaking at 350 nm you see mostly the "upper quarter" (375-400 nm).

 

If it can be of any help, the raw color on my Canon EOS M with my 340-345 nm LED is a sort of salmon orange. I am finally able to see raw colors with Photo Ninja.

Link to comment

???

Don’t agree.

Photos made with BaaderU (peaking at 350nm) don’t even look like photos made in the upper quarter under some appropriate broadband uv pass peaking at, say, 380 nm.

 

But we are getting off topic. Bernard’s problem is with narrowband UV pass filters particularly those at/under under 340 nm.

Link to comment

The A7R arrived yesterday. Initial tests showed it worked fine in IR and with a Baader U. But when I used my UV bandpass filters it was clear that the camera could not reach deeply into the UV. At 345nm it semed about half as sensitive as the A6000, and at 320nm about 1/6 as sensitive. This makes it unusable for UV TriColour as the sensitivity of the A6000 at 320nm is already pretty low.

 

 

Question: The BaaderU peak is at 350 nm so how could there be a big difference at 345 nm?

 

Question: Is there some kind of dust remover in the A7R which might not have been removed?

 

 

Well, even if the A7R is only half at sensitive at 345/350 nm as the A6000, it is still quite sensitive. So the Baader U will still work OK, but the colour balance would be different compared with ther A6000 - but even this might be corrected by WBing. It's too late now as the A7R has been returned (and another A6000 to replace it is due today), but I wish I'd done a proper comparison between the two cameras. If I only worked with filters like Baader U or U340+S8612 I probably would not have noticed any issue and would have been happy with the A7R.

 

I can't answer the question about the dust shaker. But it's interesting that Jonathan found a similar situation with the A7 III . [updated: the A7R manual gives no indication of a built-in dust remover/shaker - it talks a lot about removing dust, but describes only wiping and blowing techniques.]

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...