Full frame camera for full spectrum?

[Doug A]

My UV journey has been cut short. The full spectrum camera died. Came back today - unrepairable. No parts. Can't see rebuying the same body and risking this again. I have the igoriginal 35mm F3.5 Kyoei clone/filters, Metal El-Nikkor 50 and 105 enlarging lenses. The Kolari IR Chrome filter just arrived.

 

Considering sending in the full frame Pentax K-1 for conversion. It is my top digital body excluding the Pentax 645Z medium format. This would get me back in the game soon enough to do some IR/UV landscape photography. I could always buy another stock K-1 after Christmas. It would mean no vis FF fall landscapes. But, I have the 645 system and plenty of lenses for that.

 

I notice lots of micro 4/3 and APS-c cameras here. Is a 36mp FF DSLR fine for UV or a distinct disadvantage? Hate making decisions like this.

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[Andy Perrin]

Full frame is fine (my Sony A7S is full frame also, and it’s served me well). If anything the DSLR part is the bigger handicap, since you have less room for lens adaptation than you would with a mirrorless. But many people here use DSLRs nonetheless.

[Guest]

Which camera model was it that broke?

 

Every component of a camera is usually replaceable. In fact they are full of inter connected ribbon cables that can come loose very easily.

 

Unless it was a mechanical shutter issue or some type of electrical short then it is likely a loose cable.

[dabateman]

I would say many 135 format users here too. Fortunately this is not a brand Fan club.

Olympus cameras can see to 380nm without conversion. So some have bought an Olympus to use, then when wanting more reach either self convert it or send it off.

Also with live view, IBIS and 19.25 mm flange back distance for adapting many lenses, its a nice camera to use.

 

But now most camera brands have those features too. So you can pick what feels right and can support your lens collect.

 

Just read about internal IR monitors. That will fog your images and cause you problems. Some Panasonic and Nikon and Sony cameras have them to monitor the shutter. Some Canon RF lenses have them as well and can't be used. Also some Z-mount lenses may have them.

 

Kolari camera pages may be the most updated on cameras with IR monitoring problems.

 

The other factor recently seems to be PDAF sensors. Birna has had a lot of challenges with a Nikon Z6 conversion due to major banding problems due to the PDAF sensor.

That maybe part of why Andrea recently acquired a Panasonic S1R full spectrum as Panasonic doesn't use PDAF sensors.

However. the Nikon Z5 seems better, from Birna's tests. So there are still options.

 

An other option is the Sigma Quattro camera (SDQ or SDQH). With them you only get monochrome in UVA, they are sensitive from about 335nm into IR. But the conversion is reversible and take 30 seconds, as you just remove the dust blocker filter in front of the camera. Only problem now is they seem quite rare and the cost has really shot up.

 

Colin has a Sigma fp full spectrum camera, but that is the usual Sony IMX410 sensor.

 

 

[Doug A]

Mirrorless does allow more lens adaption. Most of the accidental UV lenses seem to be 35mm film lenses built for a FF SLR. Not sure it is a big consideration for UV. For vis photography it would be a big asset. For UV the big advantage might be having an EVF vs the screen.

 

Switching brands would take longer. Would hate to have a new camera converted - there goes the factory warranty. A 2nd hand camera probably should be used a while before conversion. Otherwise, conversion money might be lost on a malfunctioning camera. Guess I could roll the dice, though I'm no gambler.

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[Doug A]

Which camera model was it that broke?

 

Every component of a camera is usually replaceable. In fact they are full of inter connected ribbon cables that can come loose very easily.

 

Unless it was a mechanical shutter issue or some type of electrical short then it is likely a loose cable.

Pentax K-01 the funky brick mirrorless camera. Unfortunately, it is the shutter.

 

 

To Dabateman: I actually have some older Olympus 4/3 DSLRs. The newest is a 12mp E30. Also have a m4/3 E-PL1 mirrorless with optional EVF. Wonder if such old models let in UV? I'll have to try them tomorrow. Also have a Nikon D200, but can't imagine doing UV without liveview.

 

Sigma is cool, but believe it would require new lenses. I enjoy shooting the DP1 Merrill once in a while.

 

Thanks for all the tips and info,

 

Doug A

[dabateman]

I started out with an off the shelf Olympus E3 camera. Then I got a full spectrum E510. The E510 is only 1 stop faster in UV than my stock E3.

I think the E30 should work fine for UV if you have the correct adapter for your lenses.

 

The D200 doesn't sound to work well:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D200_rev05UV.html

 

If your adventurous this is how to convert the Epl1 to full spectrum:

https://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/olympus-e-pl1-ir

[ulf]

When I researched for a full frame camera to get converted I considered a Sony A7S like the one Andy has.

My original camera was an APS-C, Canon EOS 60D and I was looking for something less noisy with a bigger sensor.

For me that is more important fir IR-photography than fir UV-photography.

 

As I normally used it only with live view just as a mirrorless camera I totally ruled out any DSLR alternative and wanted all the advantages with a mirrorless camera.

+ Shorter back flange distance opens up for many more lenses and adaptations.

+ Less risk for light leakage, without an optical finder

+ The electronic finder is usable with all filters when the LCD screen is difficult to use due to a very bright environment.

 

As I am not into deeper UV with all the trouble of special illumination and odd filters I was not looking for a camera with extra deep UV-reach.

That is normally a field for real monochrome converted cameras and I like to explore the interesting false colour effects from the motifs.

 

I am not bound to any camera brand, more than that I have several Canon lenses.

 

The Sony A7S was ruled out when I realised that the image stabilising system, IBIS only worked for Sony lenses and that the tiny batteries have a very limited capacity.

That is important with extensive usage of the image display, often needed for our type of photography.

 

When I found more information about the newer Sony A7 III I decided that would be my new converted camera.

 

It had several features I liked:

+ Back illuminated low noise sensor with a dual gain system with base sensitivities of ISO 100 and ISO 650.

+ Very impressive high ISO performance.

+ IBIS now works for any third party lens. You just assign the focal length in a menu.

That opened up for my many manual focus lenses too, collected during my first decades with Canon.

+ The camera works reasonably well with my modern Canon EF lenses together with a good adapter.

+ Bigger batteries with a reasonable operation time.

+ An ability to customise the user interface and functions of many menus and buttons, to match my way of using a camera.

 

All of the above made it easy to accept all idiotic design features the Sony cameras has:

 

- A super complex and confusing menu system.

 

- A camera body that is too small to grip in a comfortable way.

Solvable with a good grip attachment.

 

- The display is not fully articulated. It can only tilt out for showing the image from above or below.

Solvable with an external monitor like the ones used for video recording.

 

I have not yet seen any traces of image banding that was reported for the Nikon mirrorless cameras.

The dynamic range and ability to push out details from RAW files is amazing, compared to the EOS 60D.

This is extra important when dealing with images from some BUG filter stacks with a very extreme RGB-channel difference.

[Doug A]

I started out with an off the shelf Olympus E3 camera. Then I got a full spectrum E510. The E510 is only 1 stop faster in UV than my stock E3.

I think the E30 should work fine for UV if you have the correct adapter for your lenses.

 

The D200 doesn't sound to work well:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D200_rev05UV.html

 

If your adventurous this is how to convert the Epl1 to full spectrum:

https://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/olympus-e-pl1-ir

 

I have the adapters to put Pentax K mount on the Olympus cameras. The Kyoei 35 clone also fits. Now I wonder if E30 or E-Pl1 will be more sensitive? Hope there's sun tomorrow :).

 

Sigma Quattro SD is very Interesting. Pentax K mount lenses fit and turn enough to lock on. Only problem is some of the aperture levers touch the Sigma filter. Which would be removed anyway. Adorama has the body on sale new for $699. Hmmm.

 

No way I'm taking a camera that far apart.

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[StephanN]

I'm using a converted Canon EOS 6D. It's not the latest model, so I got it cheap second-hand, and all my bodies are Canon, so the decision was fairly easy. Also, as was mentioned in another recent thread, if you want to go wide for landscape, full frame is not the worst choice. [Edit]There are a few 21mm lenses which work ok until 360 nm or so [/Edit]

 

However, which brand and model to get, mainly depends how far into UV you want to go, and how high ISO you will have, etc. Most of the really good lenses for UV are with M42, M39, etc., so they can be used with about any body.

[Andy Perrin]

The Sony A7S was ruled out when I realised that the image stabilising system, IBIS only worked for Sony lenses and that the tiny batteries have a very limited capacity.

That is important with extensive usage of the image display, often needed for our type of photography.

 

When I found more information about the newer Sony A7 III I decided that would be my new converted camera.

 

I am not sure yet what I want for my next camera. I guess I don't know what I'm missing with regard to stabilization, as I've never owned a camera or a lens with stabilization. I've been very happy with the A7S, given that my previous camera was the NEX-7 (and before that was a point-and-shoot). Whatever I get should preferably have even more dynamic range than the A7S or for me there is no point in the upgrade. I take a lot of night photos and a lot of photos with extreme contrast.

 

The Sony menu system was clearly designed by the Mad Hatter. Move down, move down, move down! Very annoying. However the buttons can at least be remapped, and one gets used to the peculiarities after a while.

[Doug A]

I started out with an off the shelf Olympus E3 camera. Then I got a full spectrum E510. The E510 is only 1 stop faster in UV than my stock E3.

I think the E30 should work fine for UV if you have the correct adapter for your lenses.

 

The D200 doesn't sound to work well:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D200_rev05UV.html

 

If your adventurous this is how to convert the Epl1 to full spectrum:

https://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/olympus-e-pl1-ir

 

Tried the Olympus E30 with Kyoei 35 clone, ZWB1 and BG39 filters. Bright sunny day with lens at F3.5 shows nothing in liveview. Boost is on and screen brightness set to max. It will take a photo at a very long shutter speed. Ouch.

 

Then I remembered the Olympus E620. It's one year newer than the E30. Set as above ^ it shows the scene in LV to allow focusing and composing. Amazed the E30 is so much less sensitive than other Olympus cameras. Still need to try the E-PL1. Surprised there is this much difference in sensor sensitivity.

 

Thanks,

Doug A

 

 

[Andy Perrin]

They put annoying films on the sensor glass and that affects the sensitivity.

[Doug A]

They put annoying films on the sensor glass and that affects the sensitivity.

 

Interesting. Isn't sensor glass changed out when converted to full spectrum? If so, will the sensors be close to the same sensitivity afterwards?

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[Andy Perrin]

No, the IR blocker is removed. I'm referring to the coverglass that is part of the sensor above the microlenses . Look here:

https://thinklucid.c...-image-sensors/

 

[Doug A]

No, the IR blocker is removed. This is the glass that is part of the sensor.

Wow! So there may be vast differences in UV sensitivity between different converted cameras? Has anyone compared different converted cameras to see which sensor is the one to get? What is a ballpark full sunlight UV exposure with a converted camera?

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[Andy Perrin]

Vast? No, not vast differences, at least in UVA. I do think there are differences in cutoff wavelength, but that mostly affects the UVB response and the bottom of UVA (short end). Like I know my A7S (according to some tests, not mine) won't do UVB imaging. But it is fine for all our normal UVA photos. Unless you intend to do UVB imaging, you probably should not make sensor choice a big consideration.

 

It's mostly the <350nm that differs. But that part is not used much for our normal UVA imaging unless we deliberately try to image the shorter part:

https://www.flickr.c...er/51206721156/

 

When you interpret that chart, remember that it is a LINEAR chart, but the sensor is logarithmic, so a few percent difference in transmission barely matters since it is less than one stop.

[Doug A]

Vast? No, not vast differences, at least in UVA. I do think there are differences in cutoff wavelength, but that mostly affects the UVB response and the bottom of UVA (short end). Like I know my A7S (according to some tests, not mine) won't do UVB imaging. But it is fine for all our normal UVA photos. Unless you intend to do UVB imaging, you probably should not make sensor choice a big consideration.

 

It's mostly the <350nm that differs. But that part is not used much for our normal UVA imaging unless we deliberately try to image the shorter part:

https://www.flickr.c...er/51206721156/

 

When you interpret that chart, remember that it is a LINEAR chart, but the sensor is logarithmic, so a few percent difference in transmission barely matters since it is less than one stop.

 

Glad to hear the sensors are relatively comparable after conversion. I'm not trying for UVB. At this point an acceptable UVA image would be grand.

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[dabateman]

Wow absolutely amazing. The E30 might be the only Olympus DSLR with a different UV/ IR blocking filter. Other also complained that the IR is soft and difficult.

 

How was the image with the E620?

It also offers lens focus adjustment, si may not be bad for UV. Do you have the Olympus 35mm f3.5 macro lens?

That one is good for UV photography and can autofocus.

[Bill De Jager]

One thing to consider is whether you'll be using the camera just on a tripod where you can focus off the sensor in enlarged live view, or whether you'll sometimes want to do UV photography handheld and focus using the EV. In the former case you can use either a DSLR or a mirrorless camera and that would probably come down mostly to a matter of personal preference. In the latter case you'll find it harder to manually focus on the LCD when handholding the camera, thanks to arm motion and glare on the screen. In that case you'd be better off with a mirrorless camera where you can hold the camera securely in a constant position while focusing in the EV.

 

That's a big reason why I'm using only mirrorless for handheld UV. It's too frustrating trying to manually focus on a handheld DSLR's LCD and I wouldn't attempt to do this for a closeup of a flower. The few autofocus DSLR lenses that can be used for (some degree of) UV still need to be manually focused in UV on that LCD.

 

I've already had a older MFT camera converted to IR-only for a number of years, and it's great to just whip the camera out and shoot as if it's a visible-light camera. For handheld UV and short-register lenses I have a Sony A6000. That camera has the advantages of no PDAF and no IR shutter sensor. It also has a few AF lenses that can be used to AF and shoot in shallow UV. However, it doesn't have IBIS for handheld use, and that's important given the much longer exposures in UV under even the best circumstances. The camera also feels too flimsy and lightweight to hold a heavy lens in front in the case of an adapter lacking a foot. The A6000 is really not a good solution for UV even though I was initially excited about it years ago. The A6100 is similar and the other A6xxx models all have PDAF.

 

I recently reviewed the choices again, and once more ruled out Canon R (IR monitor), Canon M (no IBIS for stills), Sony A7xx (IR shutter monitor), Sony A6xxxx models that have IBIS (PDAF), Nikon Z (PDAF), Fujifilm (PDAF), Olympus (PDAF on models with the updated and more sensitive sensors, and I don't like the ergonomics on the Pen-F), and Panasonic MFT (depending on model, PDAF, IR shutter monitor, no IBIS, and/or too big and heavy to justify the small sensor for such light-demanding photography).

 

That's why I'm still aiming for Panasonic S as my full-frame format for times when I may be shooting handheld. I may still have a smaller-format camera converted at a later date if a good candidate shows up sooner or later.

 

Olympus cameras can see to 380nm without conversion. So some have bought an Olympus to use, then when wanting more reach either self convert it or send it off.

 

This has led to problems with Olympus MFT cameras seeing UV that was let through by Panasonic MFT lenses, creating some flagrant violet fringing under certain circumstances. However, I've read that this problem has been ameliorated for the more recent Olympus cameras. This afternoon I took my E-M5 III outside with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, a known offender, and found very little violet fringing when looking directly at pixels in areas that should tend to have this problem. The worst I found was some violet in a sunstar. This suggests that UV filtration has been improved in Oly cameras. I would not rely on the more recent Olympus cameras for unconverted UV work.

[Doug A]

Wow absolutely amazing. The E30 might be the only Olympus DSLR with a different UV/ IR blocking filter. Other also complained that the IR is soft and difficult.

 

How was the image with the E620?

It also offers lens focus adjustment, si may not be bad for UV. Do you have the Olympus 35mm f3.5 macro lens?

That one is good for UV photography and can autofocus.

 

Unfortunately, I don't own the 35 macro. I came to Olympus 4/3 via OM film cameras and lenses. My native 4/3 system is comprised of kit lenses.

 

After liveview testing clouds moved in. About 2 hours before sundown the sky partially cleared. Found a yellow plant (weed) to photograph. Tried shooting F3.5, ISO 1600 at 8 seconds. There was just enough wind to cause a little bluring. Found the same flowers on the ground. Increased exposure to 10 seconds at F4. The noise is easy to see on the small camera screen. So I reduced the ISO to 400. Since it was already a time exposure I stopped down to F8 for more depth of field. Alas, 60 seconds also increased noise. Even converted to B&W the image is very noisy.

 

To: Bill De Jager

UV even seems very difficult for converted cameras. Can't imagine enough light to handhold UV shots. What lens/F stop and ISO are you using? Everything I've shot has been tripod mounted. Perhaps your filter stack passes considerably more light than my ZWB1/BG39 combo? I may have to turn to UV modified electronic flash.

 

Thanks,

Doug A

[Andy Perrin]

On the A7S, I can shoot handheld at 1/30” ISO3200 F/2.8 or so with acceptable quality. One reason I like that camera is that it has good high ISO performance. That’s with a UG11 2mm and S8612 1.75mm stack. Your BG39 is not optimal. Get some S8612 2mm or so. That’s the known best IR blocker and there is no substitute.

[ulf]

My A7 III is almost has as

On the A7S, I can shoot handheld at 1/30” ISO3200 F/2.8 or so with acceptable quality. One reason I like that camera is that it has good high ISO performance. That’s with a UG11 2mm and S8612 1.75mm stack. Your BG39 is not optimal. Get some S8612 2mm or so. That’s the known best IR blocker and there is no substitute.

My A7 III hs almost as low noise as the A7S and has image stabilisation, IBIS working for any lens.

For handheld UV-photo that camera is even better.

 

If you can accept a minor violet contamination with some filter-transmission just above 400nm, a filter stack made of S8612, 2mm and UG2A, 2mm will gain at least one stop of exposure.

This filter stack is not for any UV-purist, but it still give black UV-signatures the proper way in flowers and the same black colour in foliage.

[Bill De Jager]

Doug, it's been a couple of years since I last remember shooting UV handheld and at this point I'm not sure about a lot of the shots in that folder. However, I'm pretty sure the following was taken handheld. I distinctly remember wandering around the area depicted in this series with my converted camera, looking for inspiration. Canon 6D converted to broad spectrum at LifePixel, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, BaaderU filter; 1/50th second, f/2.8, ISO 3200.

 

In case people are wondering, this is a trash can wrapped for winter in a recreation area in the mountains that closes for winter. It's actually the best shot in the series (of handheld shots) in terms of focus and exposure, though I did lighten it up some in post.

[Doug A]

On the A7S, I can shoot handheld at 1/30” ISO3200 F/2.8 or so with acceptable quality. One reason I like that camera is that it has good high ISO performance. That’s with a UG11 2mm and S8612 1.75mm stack. Your BG39 is not optimal. Get some S8612 2mm or so. That’s the known best IR blocker and there is no substitute.

 

Your exposure values are amazing. Running my cameras to ISO 3200 and shooting wide open still leaves me 4-5 stops darker. After getting another camera, I'll replace the BG39 with a S8612. I've seen it recommended by many. That won't add 5 stops of light but it will help.

 

My A7 III is almost has as My A7 III hs almost as low noise as the A7S and has image stabilisation, IBIS working for any lens.

For handheld UV-photo that camera is even better.

 

If you can accept a minor violet contamination with some filter-transmission just above 400nm, a filter stack made of S8612, 2mm and UG2A, 2mm will gain at least one stop of exposure.

This filter stack is not for any UV-purist, but it still give black UV-signatures the proper way in flowers and the same black colour in foliage.

 

Not doing UV research, so I could live with slight color inaccuracies. They might even be prettier. Are you saying a stop would be gained over Andy's filter stack or mine?

 

Doug, it's been a couple of years since I last remember shooting UV handheld and at this point I'm not sure about a lot of the shots in that folder. However, I'm pretty sure the following was taken handheld. I distinctly remember wandering around the area depicted in this series with my converted camera, looking for inspiration. Canon 6D converted to broad spectrum at LifePixel, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, BaaderU filter; 1/50th second, f/2.8, ISO 3200.

 

In case people are wondering, this is a trash can wrapped for winter in a recreation area in the mountains that closes for winter. It's actually the best shot in the series (of handheld shots) in terms of focus and exposure, though I did lighten it up some in post.

Impressive handheld exposure. I can't get even close to handholdable shutter speeds. Are broad and full spectrum the same thing? I must try my Pentax 40mm F2.8 pancake.

 

Cameras have improved a lot in high ISO. Think a newer camera is in order.

 

Thanks,

 

barondla