Search the Community

A vendor I have worked with in the past asked me if I wanted my 50R evaluated for a debayering. He offered a discount on the conversion if it was a go, which I suspect it will be. I am all set for converted cameras, but thought I would share the offer. PM me if you are interested. I have no financial interest, just helping out.

Here's a video I shot a few months ago when I first got my Samsung Galaxy Z-Flip3 smartphone. I held up a 760nm cut-on filter over the lens and was surprised how well it turned out. I finally created a Vimeo account to post the occasional video here so this one is my first attempt. I didn't make any adjustments to the camera settings, it automatically pops into night mode when the scene gets dark enough. I only edited the video to reduce the bitrate so the filesize would be better for online. There is a prominent hotspot in the IR portion of the video. If you're wondering why the foreground grass looks dark in IR it's fake grass, some sort of vinyl plastic. Here's a few stills taken at the same location recently using the same smartphone & filter. I monochromed them and reduced to 2000 pixels for posting here. The last one was taken in the shade and could barely be handheld due to a slow exposure of 1/17 second. The quality isn't superb but remember these were taken with a lens smaller than the button on your shirt. The gear. The little 27mm filter is about the right size to allow a wide angle shot from the phonecam's tiny lens. 720 and 760nm filters worked best. 800nm was getting too dark for handheld shots. The IR only works in bright daylight but the little filter makes a nice accessory for this smartphone.

NEVER look at a UV-C light. NEVER let UV-C light hit your skin or eyes directly or by reflection. UV-C light can cause: severe burns of the eyes and the skin, and DNA damage from broken chromosomes. When working with UV-C illumination, you MUST: cover up completely, wear head & eye protection, and have strong ventilation. I was thinking about UVC photography, and wondered if the Bayer filter dyes would fluoresce and cause problems. Then I realized this would not be a problem but a solution. If a layer of material on the sensor would fluoresce in UVC, then the photocells would record the pattern of light. What if we could coat the sensor (preferably de-bayered) with a thin layer of phosphors? Maybe some kind of paint, applied in very thin layers (preferably a mix with white fluorescence, if the sensor still has its Bayer matrix). Any irregularities in layer thickness could be fixed using the astrophotography technique of applying "flats" . If the layer would be relatively opaque to visible light, then the sensor would only record UV fluorescence, not visible light, so with care we could dispense with UV-pass filters! This technique is of course a variation of a standard technique for visualizing things like x-rays. I wonder if maybe we could figure out a simple variation for our application.

Hi there. After using a modified D70 (720nm) for 13 years, I moved to the Z system and finally decided to also get a modified Z camera to join my regular Z9/Z6II pair. I squinted at the Primaluce Z5 for a while (and read the thread about it here), but they wouldn't come down with their price, so I took advantage of the current cashback rebates, got one new and had it modified for full spectrum by Makario. I'm aiming for IR landscape photography but still chose full spectrum to later experiment with other uses. Using an screw-on 720nm filter for now. As it is widely known, the Z5 (and probably all the other Z cameras as well) won't measure custom WB from an infrared image, as it's apparently doing a "sanity check" on the resulting values and concludes there's something wrong with the measurement. Of course, I tried to trick it into accepting something anyway. Among the things I tried: - putting a D70 jpg onto the card to measure from - modifying a Z5 jpg with experimental WB values via exiftool and measuring from that The D70 is not accepted, and it also seems that if the values in the image for PRE are too extreme (like >2), the camera will not reject them for PRE measurement use, but the PRE setting remains unchanged anyway. Even then I managed to get some wild results, but all are resulting in either too green or too red or too purple images. I will of course set the white balance in RAW processing later, but I'd like to see a reasonable preview of the brightness values in the viewfinder. The closest I've got now is setting the value to 2500K and tint all the way to green, then set a monochrome picture profile. I also contacted the Nikon support, which has been very helpful in other occasions including resulting in actual firmware changes for bug fixes, and asked for a way to set white balance off any source image for artistic freedom, infrared imaging, and colored lighting situations. I would encourage anyone "suffering" from the same problem to do this, too. Did anyone have more success or try other ideas to trick a Z camera into better WB preview? Again, I'm aiming for 720nm in daylight currently. Maik

Well Sony hasn't forgotten about UV. All the optimization to cut UV from recent sensors must help for this manufacturing sensor. But its impressive, 200-400nm range, 192 frames per second global shutter. You can almost do 4K video on your manufacturing line. Its 2856 (H) × 2848 (V) in 2/3 sensor size. But we may see this in an astro camera. You never know. https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/news/2021/2021092901.html

If anybody is interested this is what I can do with Fujifilm GFX 50R mono + Fujinon GF 50/3.5 (modern, non-UV lens) on a foggy day (I only have free time on weekends, and I have no luck to weather, fog, tmperature around freezing, very short days - 52 degrees North). ISO fixed at 100. F usually 11-16. T from 20s to 2 minutes. Attaching almost full frames and 100% crops.

For a while I've been wondering about getting a camera for my microscope which wasn't a SLR or mirrorless, but it needed to be something I could make work in UV down to 300nm (and perhaps below). After consideration of various options, I approached Altair Astro in the UK about their 26M monochrome APS-C camera - https://www.altairastro.com/altair-hypercam-26m-aps-c-mono-camera-16bit-7974-p.asp This camera has a BSI Sony IMX571 monochrome sensor, and has the option of cooling as well. Importantly for me, they are UK based, and they were willing to work with me on some adaptations. The window on the camera which is there because of the cooling setup would block the UV so I ordered one without the window and am having a fused silica replacement made instead. Also I'm pretty certain that the sensor on the coverglass will be UV blocking (like most modern sensor coverglasses) and be no good down at 300nm, so the plan is to send it away to MaxMax and get the coverglass replaced with fused silica. I will however be keeping the microlenses. I went with the APS-C one for a couple of reasons. Cost - the full frame sensor version was over twice the price. Risk - given it will have the coverglass removed this is a dangerous process and doesn't always work first time. Damaging this one will be a lot cheaper to replace than the full frame one. I would have loved the 61Mp fullframe one they do (Sony IMX455 sensor), but it was overkill for my microscopy work, and I just couldn't justify it at this stage. I'll also be using it on the telescope I'll be getting this year and APS-C will be better for that as well. The camera arrived the other day, along with a nice adapter for Nikon lenses and I managed to get it up and running (steep learning curve as I have never used a camera like this before). Some shots of the brief setup and test with the Rayfact 105mm lens (the picture of the garden was taken with the Baader U on the lens, through the glass of the kitchen window). Overall the build quality seems impressive, so I am looking forward to having a bit more of a play with this and seeing what it can do. I'll use this thread to update any major findings which might be of interest to the forum as and when I can.

I do not remember seeing anything here about this camera: https://trieye.tech/ovi/ I just found it in a newsletter for optical components and know nothing more about it.

26 May 2022 Editor's Note: This is an ongoing project. Updates welcomed anytime. Updates 26 May 2022: Added material from the UV Photography Sticky. TERMINOLOGY IR = Infrared UV = Ultraviolet UV/IR = UV or IR or both WB = white balance Internal IR LED Shutter Monitor (IISM) = Internal Diagnostic IR LED The IISM is an IR LED on the shutter board which fires to test whether shutter speed matches exposure time within a given tolerance. The IR LED can contaminate reflected UV or IR photographs with an Infrared light smear on the frame. This IR light smear is easier to detect in a reflected UV photograph, but it can often be detected in a reflected IR photograph. BASIC TEST for IISM CONTAMINATION &/or LIGHT LEAKS in CAMERA BODY SET UP Remove the lens and attach the camera body cap. Close all the port doors. If the camera is a DSLR type, then close the viewfinder or cover it. Set the camera to manual mode. Turn on the setting for "release without lens". Turn off high ISO noise reduction and long exposure noise reduction. Turn off any dynamic range boosters or HDR settings. Example: Nikon labels this Active D-Lighting. For Sonys, it is DRO/Auto HDR. Set ISO to the highest native, unboosted value. Example: On my Nikon D610, ISO-6400 is the highest native value. The boosted values are indicated with H0.3, H0.7 and H1.0. Set exposure time to the highest value available. Example: On most cameras 30 seconds is the highest value. That should be quite long enough to detect light leaks or IR-LED contamination. Fire the shutter. RESULTS GOOD: IF the resulting frame is completely dark, THEN you have no light leaks and no IISM leak GOOD: ELSE IF there are narrow edges of "amp glow" on the periphery of the LCD rectangle, THEN that's OK too. BAD: ELSE IF there are any light smears, patches, rays, blobs, or whatnot THEN you have either IISM contamination or a light leak. RULE OUT LIGHT LEAK Cover the camera with a towel or blanket thick enough to block out all light. Just put the camera under the bed covers. "-) Repeat the test. IF the result is an entirely black frame or shows only peripheral amp glow, THEN you had a light leak AND there is no IISM contamination. ELSE you have IISM contamination. Bonus Test REPEAT THE TEST TO LOOK FOR FOR LENS LIGHT LEAKS Set up as before except put the capped lens on the camera along with any supporting adapters or helicoids. Light can leak through aperture windows on lenses and also through adapters or helicoid adapters. Test extendible lenses or helicoids at full extension, half-way extension and unextended. -->> Please don't forget to reset your camera. <<-- Thank you to Kolari Vision for maintaining up-to-date lists of cameras with IR shutter monitors. This is greatly appreciated. Avoid Most Cameras with the Internal IR LED Shutter Monitor (IISM) (1) It is very difficult to figure out what to recommend for these cameras which have the IISM. Some IISM bodies do not show the contamination, some show it intermittently, and some are useless because it happens every time. (2) Anybody who has one of the IISM bodies, please test the workarounds for us. It would really help to know if the workarounds work every time. There are some reports that certain IISM cameras do not show IR contamination because the IR LED is above 900 nm. It is not clear to me why that would be so unless the camera sensor is not sensitive to higher IR wavelengths. But most of us on UVP have made reflected IR photographs at 900 nm or above. Following these IISM listings are some suggested workarounds for cameras having IISM. The workarounds may not always work. We have UVP members who report successfully using one of the listed IISM cameras for UV/IR work. I have no explanation for this. Is it possible that some IR LEDs are not as intense as others and thus the IR contamination is lessened? Editor's Note: Unfortunately. I cannot guarantee that this list is complete. It is very difficult to find infomation about IISMs from the manufacturers. Nikon Full Frame DSLR with IISM D700, D750, D780 D3, D4, D5, D6 and all their variations D850 Nikon Small Frame with IISM D7000 and D7100 are reported to have non-contaminating IISM. Nikon Mirrorless with IISM Also note that these Nikon mirrorless cameras also have PDAF artifact problems. See below under the PDAF discussion. Z5 Z6, Z6 II Z7, Z7 II Z9 Sony Full Frame with IISM Also note that some Sony models have PDAF artifact problems. See below under the PDAF discussion. A7 II, A7R II, A7S II A7R III A7 IV A7C A9 Panasonic Micro 4/3 with IISM Gx85: We have a report from a UVP member that IISM not a problem for the Gx85. LINK. GH3, GH4, GH5 GX7, GX8, GX85, GX9 GM1 Canon Full Frame with IISM 5D Mark IV 5DS, 5DS R 6D Mark II Canon R Mirrorless with RF Lens IISM All Canon R models when used with RF lenses can have Infrared contamination from the IISM of the lens. Only EF lenses on the appropriate adapter should be used with full spectrum Canon R conversions. Panasonic Full Frame S Does not have IISM. Pentax Does not have IISM. Olympus Does not have IISM Fuji - X Does not have IISM. IISM WORKAROUNDS These are workarounds suggested for cameras having IISM. We have not confirmed these on UVP, but I will update here if I get any reports. Shoot Mirror-up and the IR LED will not fire. Shoot in Silent Mode and the IR LED will not fire. Keep ISO low and exposure time short to avoid severe contamination. This is not always feasible for reflected UV photos which tend to have longer exposures and need higher ISOs. The IR LED contamination can sometimes be seen even with lower ISOs or shorter exposure times. Repeat the TEST above using the IISM Workarounds Please let me know if the Workarounds are valid. Photos would be good too. IISM REPLACEMENT The UV/IR photographer (and good techie!) Nick Spiker has swapped out an offending IR-Led in his camera and replaced it with a SWIR-LED and detector which does not contaminate. Very, very cool! Currently this service is not yet offered by the retail conversion shops. Here is a link which briefly mentions this IR-Led swap: https://www.nickspik...dak-aerochrome/ SONY TRANSLUCENT MIRROR: Conversions Need Lots of UV or IR Light Composing and focus with these Sonys can only be done via Live View. So there must be enough UV or IR light to enable this. Also, autofocus will not work in a conversion, although we typically do not use autofocus for our UV/IR work. A33, A37 A55, A57, A58 A65, a68 A77, A77 II . NIKON DSLR: Conversions Cannot Measure In-Camera White Balance I don't think many folks are using a Nikon DSLR these days for reflected UV photography, so this is just for the record. Nikon DSLRs cannot measure white balance under a UV-pass filter. They can measure WB under some IR-pass filters. However, a WB measurement can be made which pushes the RGGB coordinates away from an oversaturated red mess. This is done by making an in-camera WB measurement in *visible light* against a monitor screen displaying a magenta-grey JPG (a magenta which is not too saturated or too bright). I made a magenta JPG in Photoshop Elements for this purpose. The resulting white balance can be further tuned using Nikon's in-camera WB chart tool. Alternately, set the Nikon Picture Control to Monochrome and expose in such a way as to keep the histogram off the right-hand wall. It's easy to review the UV photo on the Nikon LCD with a Mono setting because there is no color overload. And, the raw file will still hold all the (false) color and can be white-balanced in a converter app. Any mirrorless camera using phase detect autofocus is prone to striping artifacts. In ordinary Visible photography, PDAF striping is rare. Wide dynamic range scenes and/or brightly illuminated, low ISO scenes can often induce the banding in a non-converted camera. And if the banding is there, then shadow lifts make it look worse. In a full spectrum converted mirrorless camera, PDAF striping seems to be exacerbated. UV photos typically have wide dynamic range, and shadow lifts are often sometimes used to bring out dark details in UV. The UV false color white balance step induces a radical color shift. If striping is present, it will look worse in the processed UV file. Any striping artifacts in an IR file can also be further worsened in the converter with the typical IR processing of stronger contrast, channel swapping, enhancement of edge acutance and/or a white balance step. There are some software fixes available which can clean up some of the PDAF striping with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately, we have not seen warnings from the major retail conversion shops about exacerbated PDAF striping in some mirrorless conversions. So, again unfortunately, you are on your own about deciding whether to convert a particular mirrorless camera. Please first check to see whether your camera uses phase detect autofocus. FYI PDAF-Only Focusing: Possible Striping/Banding Artifacts PDAF = phase detect autofocus This is NOT a warning about avoiding certain mirrorless cameras. It is simply meant to be educational so that you know more about PDAF striping if it does occur. Any mirrorless camera using phase detect autofocus is prone to occasional striping artifacts usually caused by flare or backlighting and also sometimes seen in scenes with wide dynamic range or in brightly illuminated, low ISO scenes. Under most lighting scenarios, PDAF striping does not occur at all. From Jim Kasson: LINK "It is reported to occur in conjunction with lens flare caused by reflections off the PDAF pixels on the cameras sensor. It often is invisible until the files are pushed a bit." From Thom Hogan: LINK " PDAF striping — This typically occurs when you have light sources in the scene and the lens is producing flare. This occurs on all of the Sony mirrorless cameras, though is most visible on the latest generation A7/A9 bodies, which have more PDAF sensors in them." After conversion the PDAF striping artifacts might be even more apparent in reflected UV photographs because white balancing false colors and lifting dark shadows is rather hard on the pixels. The best (worst?) example of post-conversion PDAF artifacts we have seen here is from Birna's Nikon Z6 conversion. LINK FWIW, the horizontal banding artifacts in Nikon Zs are said to occur from the side effects of Nikon's attempted PDAF artifact fix! (Has Nikon fixed the fix? Sounds like a rabbit hole in the making.) Currently (18 May 2022) I do not know whether there have been any firmware upgrades for Nikon Zs or Sony As which might lessen the PDAF artifacts. The software converter app Raw Therapee has a PDAF striping fix for some cameras. Check other apps for such fixes. We cannot possibly list all PDAF cameras here. But the following cameras have been discussed a lot on camera forums as having occasional PDAF striping occurrences. Nikon Z50, Z6, Z7, Z7 II Sony a7 II, a7S II, a7 III, a7R III, a7R IV, a1, a9 Olympus OM-D EM Some links: PDAF striping on the Sony a7R III Sony a7 III, a7R III, a7 II, a7S II, a9 PDAF striping Nikon Z50 PDAF banding PDAF striping in the Sony a7R IV Nikon Z7 PDAF banding FAQS Debunking false claims about Sony A7 III PDAF striping Sony a7 III PDAF striping - FAQS GOOD LIST If it is not on the IISM lit above, then it is here on the Good List -- although not visibly, because I cannot possibly list all the cameras good for conversion (IR or full spectrum). However, I do plan to gather the useful comments about converted cameras which members have actually used successfully. General Remarks Image Quality Leaving aside sensor sensitivity to UV/IR light for the moment, it is true for both reflected UV or reflected IR photography, just as it is true for Visible light photography, that the better the sensor, the better the image quality. Get the best sensor your finances permit. Good dynamic range is useful in UV photography. High ISO with good color and little noise is useful in both UV and IR work. Color is not as important, methinks, because all color is false in the UV/IR world. Flange Focal Distance (FFD): Shorter is better for old lenses and that means Mirrorless Given that dedicated UV lenses are outrageously expensive, most UV photographers look for those old, simply designed, uncoated, generic 35/3.5s or for old enlarger lenses. It is easiest to adapt them to mirrorless cameras having a short flange focal length so that focusing can be achieved at all distances including infinity focus. In-Camera White Balance Measurement As mentioned above, under dark UV-pass filters, Nikon DSLRs cannot make an in-camera WB measurement. If in-camera WB is important to you, then avoid Nikons for conversion. Please do note that cameras which can measure WB under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters are sometimes slightly inaccurate. Just so you know not to expect WB perfection every time. WB can always be tweaked during raw file conversion by making a photo during your shoot of some WB standard such as PTFE or Spectralon. Canon EOS, various models DSLR, APS-C/APS-H/Full Frame, Long FFD Image quality has greatly improved over time. Nice menus. Can set in-camera white balance under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters?? Robust bodies for field use. Some old lenses cannot be adapted to Canon's 42.0 mm FFD. Remember to check the IISM List above and avoid Canons which have the which have the internal IR LED. Pentax K, various models DSLR, APC-S/Full Frame, Long FFD Good to very good (K-1, K-1 II, K-3) image quality. Nice menus. Can set in-camera white balance under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters?? Robust bodies for field use. Some old lenses cannot be adapted to Pentax's long 45.46.0 mm FFD, but you have a wide range of old M42 lenses to choose from. No IISM. Nikon D600, D610, D800, D810 DSLR, Full Frame, Long FFD. Very good image quality, but Nikons are notorious for not being able to set an in-camera white balance under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters. You get used to it. White balance can always be set in the converter. Robust bodies for field use. Most old lenses cannot be adapted to Nikon's 46.50 mm FFD. Two currently manufactured UV dedicated lenses are F-mount: Rayfact 105/4.5 and Coastal Optics 60/4.0. Kolari Vision mentions that the D600 and D800 have an IISM, but it does not cause contamination. LINK Remember to check the IISM List above and avoid Nikons which have the internal IR LED. Nikon DX DSLR, Small Frame, Long FFD The same Full Frame remarks apply here. Kolari Vision mentions that the D7000 and D7100 have an IISM, but it does not cause contamination. LINK I am unable to find other definitive information about whether Nikon DX bodies have IR LEDs. But we have no reports of problems. Olympus OM-D EM, various models Mirrorless, Micro 4/3, Short FFD. These Olys are a favorite conversion for some respected UV/IR photographers. Light weight, easy to use. Can set in-camera WB under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters. Average image quality at higher ISOs, so do provide good illumination. Said to have deeper reach into the UV than most. PDAF might cause striping artifacts. No IISM. Panasonic Lumix G, various models Mirrorless, Micro 4/3, Short FFD. Very good for UV video. Light weight, easy to use. Easy menus. Can set in-camera WB under dark UV or IR filters. Bodies less robust than some for field use. Average image quality at higher ISOs, so do provide good illumination. PDAF might cause striping artifacts. Remember to check the IISM list above and avoid G models which have the internal IR LED Sony alpha E-mount, various models Mirrorless, APS-C/Full Frame, Short FFD. Currently high on the list of best full-frame sensors, but Sonys are notorious for bad menus. You get used to it. Can set in-camera WB under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters. Bodies less robust than Pentax, Canon, Nikon. PDAF might cause occasional striping artifacts. Remember to check the IISM list above and avoid Sony models which have the internal IR LED. Sony NEX Many UV/IR photographers started with a NEX conversion. Fuji-X Mirrorless, Small Frame, Short FFD No IISM Panasonic S1, S1H, S1R Mirrorless, Full Frame, Short FFD. Currently high on the list of best full-frame sensors. Easy menus. Can set in-camera WB under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters. Rather big and bulky, but you get used to it. Robust bodies for field use. The S1R produces a slightly different false color palette than usual in white-balanced, reflected UV photos. No IISM. No PDAF. Sigma fp Mirrorless, Full Frame, Short FFD Unusual small modular camera! Viewfinder, grip and hot shoe are add-ons. Said to be very easy to DIY convert to full spectrum. Image quality said to be very film like. No IISM. No PDAF. OLDIES BUT GOODIES Or should I say, oldies but cheapies? Nikon DSLRs (old): Usable unmodified: D1, D1H, D1X, D100, D2H, D50, D60, D80. Usable unmodifed, but better if modded: D2HS. Good unmodified: D70, D70S, D40. Must be modified: D40x, D200 Fujifilm Finepix (old): Must be modified: S3 Pro, S5 Pro Pre-modified by Fuji: S3 Pro-UVIR, IS PRO. Both no longer manufactured, but available used. Don't reach too far into the UV though. Kodak (old): When we first started the Stickies, we listed these cams as having UV/IR potential, but I don't know if they can be found anymore. DCS 520, 560 DCS 620, 620X, 660 DCS 720X, 760C

I recently had one of my Canon EOS 5DSR cameras converted to multispectral by MaxMax. When Dan did this I asked him to send me back the internal filters which he removed from the sensor, as I wanted to measure their transmission spectra. This post is a quick writeup of what I found. Transmission measurements were done using an Ocean Optics FX spectrometer (between 250nm and 800nm), and an Ocean Optics DH-2000-BL light source. Internal filters Two filters were returned along with the camera - a clear one and a green one. The clear one is apparently the coated ICF assembly and dust shaker, and the green on is BG38 or something similar to block IR. I noticed that the clear one started to look green if I held it an angle, and wasn't looking straight on at it. At certain angles it had a red tinge as well. Pictures below show the two filters. Firstly the green IR filter (these often crack during removal as they are stuck onto the sensor and are very thin). And the clear ICF filter assembly, showing the colour effects at different angles. Transmission properties The first set of plots shows the transmission of the two filters individually, and when combined together. This was done with the light source at 90 degree to the surface of the filters; As expected the green filter shows the typical IR filter profile. The ICF filter looks to be a UV/IR cut filter. Combined together they give a strong UV and IR blocking (apart from a weird little spike around 370nm), and strong red attenuation. The second graph, shows the transmission through the ICF filter, when the filter is held at different angles, from flat (incoming light at 90 degrees) up to 60 degrees from flat (incoming light at 90 degrees to the filter surface); The graph is a little busy (I can split these out if people are interested), but shows as the filter is tilted angle of the incoming light moves away normal to the surface, the transmission characteristics of the filter vary quite significantly. With increasing angle, the transmission of the filter shifts to the left, to shorter wavelengths, with less red being transmitted. This presumably while it looks green when looked through at an angle. It also gets pretty complex, with certain wavelengths being let through and others being blocked. The red seen on the filter at certain angles is presumably reflection (I'm guessing as it isn't being transmitted, it is being reflected). It needs to be tilted quite a way to get these shifts, but it does make me wonder what is happening with, for instance, extreme wide angle lenses - what is the most extreme angle the light can hit the sensor from the back of the lens? Could this lead to colour shifts towards the edges of the image? Do the effects become more extreme with mirrorless cameras where rear lens elements can get much closer to the sensor?

Updated July 19, 2020. Well computers do what you tell them exactly not what you want. Corrections added below. I have now build my pi based camera. Quite exciting to construct it. I have 4.3" touch screen, with the pi 4B board. I also have a UPS hat connected, which takes 2 of the same batteries used in the convoy flashlights. So I have it fully mobile. I got 2 HQ camera modules. One I carefully popped the CM500 filter out with a Q-tip after carefully breaking the glue with tweezers. So I can place it back. The stock camera should allow for UV transmission. But the sad news from my test today. The full spectrum converted camera is very faintly sensitive at 370nm. Its black with 335nm and 313nm filters using quartz UAT lens and two Exxo Terra bulbs. I see something faint at 370nm using analog gain switch 16, so at basically ISO 1600. As pi uses: ISO = analog gain x digital gain x 100. But this is mostly likely higher wavelength UV range of my 370bp15 filter. I get an image with BaaderU and U330WB80 improved filter. So the deep UV end might only be 375nm to 380nm. I get a good image with 390bp25 filter. So that may be the filter of choice. So if you want a HQ camera for UV, there is no point in removing the CM500 filter as the filter lets in more UV than the camera can see (still true after update). I only saw half stop drop at 335nm for the filter. So stacking a 2.5mm or maybe even 3mm U360, UG1 or ZWB2 glass with a stock HQ pi camera should give nice high band UV. There is space for that behind the lens and in front of the camera if using a convoy cut filter size around 20mm. I haven't yet tested the IR. But others have and IR always seems easy. Not sure if a monochrome converted camera would be better. Its possible the stack used on top of the sensor is really cutting out the UV. Would need to see a test to see if worth the cost. I did figure out how to convert the jpeg + raw files to DNG, using PyDNG. I also have code to isolate the four channels. The modified dcraw also works to develop the jpeg + raw files. So all the backing was done prior to today's test. I have guizero providing an on screen touch camera control. Using a modified Merlin camera code. Still need to finalize that package. Updated: So I inspected my EXIF data and found a major problem. I thought I could fix the ISO and have the shutter speed float to high values like a normal camera. However there seems to be a problem with my version of raspistill. The lowest shutter speed it floats to is 1/16 seconds. So not very good to test out deep UV transmission. For my camera module the analog gain switches are -ag 1 = ISO 40, 2 = ISO 80, 4 = ISO 160, 8 = ISO 320 and 16 = ISO 640 with digital gain fixed at 1. So my original test for UVB was conducted using ISO 640 with shutter speed 1/16 and F4.5 on a Quartz UAT lens. Not much light allowed into the Camera and No wonder I didn't see anything. My raspistill does seem to have an issue as I can't hit a shutter speed above 21 seconds (that's with -md 3 switch). Using the -ex verylong switch, I can only get 10.2 seconds maximum shutter speed. So will need to find a fixed update. July 19, 2020 images (full spectrum module filter is removed): Visible ISO 160 (-ag 4, -dg 1) with 1/16 seconds shutter speed with 2 Exo-Terra UVB lamps and UAT set to F8, because who doesn't like diffraction of F44 equivalent: 330WB80 improved filter only showing what I previously saw 1/16 shutter speed, ISO 640 (-ag 16, -dg 1), with UAT at F5.6: 330WB80 improved filter only with a correct exposure 10 Seconds, ISO 320 (-ag 8, -dg 1), F5.6: 370bp15 + 330WB80 improved 10 seconds shutter speed, ISO 320 (-ag 8, -dg 1), F5.6: 335bp10 + 330WB80 improved 10 seconds shutter speed, ISO 2560 (-ag 16, -dg 4), F5.6: 335bp10 + 330WB80 improved 21 seconds shutter speed, ISO 320 (-ag 8, -dg 1), F5.6: Chatting with Dan at MaxMax. He might be able to significantly improve UV response with monochrome conversion. He hinted at being able to see a 255nm LED with the sensor after conversion. But is still working on the HQ camera. I hope its affordable and that would be very exciting to maybe get into UVC. The only main problem with raspistill I see, once I get it fixed. Is that it needs 7x the duration of your shutter speed to capture the image. So a 10 second exposure actually takes 80 seconds with my camera. This is the first 5-6 captures are for camera adjustment. then main capture and then data processing to save. So if I can get the 269 maximum shutter speed to actually work, it would take 30 minutes for that capture time.

Did anyone on here convert an EOS M to full spectrum? Also with just the stock cover glass, how deep into UVA did it pick up? I want to try a cheap mirrorless as I've never owned one. The mirrors in the ones I have are useless as I've never looked through the view finder. Thanks

I am puzzled. I have been scratching my head for ages trying to work out why UV photographs taken with the full-spectrum-converted Olympus E-M1 (Mk1) camera I have been using for some years show diffuse yellow halos around strong highlights... The answer I seem to have found... seemed illogical at first, but I am now quite convinced the camera sensor itself fluoresces. It fluoresces enough to be visible to the eye. Has anybody seen something like this before? It seems to be the sensor itself that fluoresces, but it could also be related to the "proprietary coated glass" used as filter replacement by DSLR AstroTEC (http://www.dslr-astr.../index-eng.html) for the conversion. Fluorescent coatings are used on some sensor arrays of spectrometers to extend the sensitivity deeper into the UV, but this makes little sense for a normal photographic camera. What is the evidence: 1) For some time I have noticed that the yellow halos did not differ much in sunlight, using a "full-spectrum" flash or using a 365 nm flashlight. 2) I started suspecting that the cause could be fluorescence of the lens itself as I was using front mounted filters (both Baader U, and StraightEdgeU. 3) I could still see the halos with SWB1 and SWB2 3mm filters mounted behind the lens in a DEO-Tech OWL adapter with a filter drawer. 4) Yesterday I slightly "shortened" a spare Baader filter ring, so that the Baader filter would easily fit in the OWL adapter, the halos were still there. 5) I went into a darkroom shined my 365 nm LED "flood" flashlight into the camera, and the sensor glowed rather faintly clearly yellow. 6) Today I took photographs of the glowing sensor (of course also showing the blue fluorescence from dust and lint). Both photographs were taken with an off-the-shelf E-M1 mk II, with a M.Zuiko 60 mm f:2.8 macro with a Zeiss T* UV filter stacked with Tiffen Haze 2A filter. In addition to the fluorescence of the sensor, the strongly fluorescent red index dot can be seen. The badly done reassembly and chipped glass edges can be also seen. The M.Zuiko 60 mm f:2.8 transmits very little UV radiation itself.

The Italian astronomy specialists, PrimaLuce Labs https://www.primalucelab.com/, recently advertised their full-spectrum modification of the new Nikon Z5 camera. UVP (Birna) has received a review sample and my findings will be reported in this thread. A mirrorless model in the Nikon Z line-up, the Z5 has a "full-frame" FX 24 MPix sensor, calibrated ISO range 100-51.200, and dual card slots for SD cards. It is powered by the ubiquitous EN-15-class batteries common to most Nikon mirrorless models. The Z5 comes with the EN-15C version, however the older types can be used too, but maximum number of frames might be reduced. There is an option of using real-time charging via USB-C to avoid any downtime from a battery swap, or one can use the A/C mains option available. Full specifications of the Z5 can be found at Nikon's web site: https://imaging.niko...mirrorless/z_5/ The PrimaLuce modification entails replacing the stock AA filter with their own "full-spectrum" version, plus recalibrating the camera to enable reliable AF with the native Z lenses. The graph (from the PrimaLuce web site) shown above indicates the modified camera should be ideal for IR photography nd by extension, also for various kinds of multispectral photography. The replacement internal filter rolls off more rapidly towards 300nm than the UV aficionado would prefer. Whether this is a serious drawback remains to be seen when conditions allow in-depth UV testing, using dedicated UV lenses such as hte Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 APO and the UV-Nikkor 105mm f/4.5. At present, winter is approaching and good subjects for UV evaluation are harder to find. First impressions are quite positive as I reveived a very clean camera with no sensor dirt (not always the case from better known conversion services). PrimaLuce throw in a 64GB SD-card for good measure so one can be up and shooting in a short while. They will give a 4-year camera warranty once the camera is registered on the Nital.it web site, however I could not complete this process as the site refused (?) non-Italian citizenship. I guess Nikon Nordic would honour a world-wide warranty though. The camera feels and handles just like an ordinary Z5/Z6/Z7, thus is easy to set up exactly as the end user wants. Accessories such as L-brackets, GPS devices, and remote controls from other Z models all function as expected.

So as you probably already know first barriers to ultraviolet photography are IR/UV cut dichroic mirror and color filter array in front of sensor which in most normal cameras blocks out UV starting from about 400nm. Strangely CFA even blocks out near infrared spectrum which seems to have excellent transmission through semitransparent dyed plastics but infrared converted cameras appear to have this pink tint. http://www.fen-net.de/walter.preiss/bilder/spectrum.gif That’s why necessary step is removal of Bayer CFA filter what is called also demosaicing or debayering. Although there are different camera and sensor designs, color filter arrays such as Foveon or even prismatic ones used in 3CCD cameras as well already monochrome sensors which can have greater sensitivity but they are exotic and expensive. There is solution also of swapping sensor for monochrome but they are hard to find too. Hot mirrors also might differ and I was lucky to find JVC camera IR-cut filter which passes 365nm UV LED spectrum but most IR-cut filters block UV that’s why for UV and IR photography it must be removed. UV also is blocked/reflected by other components such as lens, optical cement, AR coatings, microlens (used in older front lit sensors) and silicon nitride coating on sensors which blocks ultraviolet and blue light: https://www.photonic..._sensors/a47007 Backlit CMOS sensors can actually detect even UV-C spectrum even down to 200nm but that is limited due to silicon nitride coating and it would be interesting to know if something could be done about it? IR-cut filter removal, unlike debayering, is much simpler, reversible and less risky operation. I was attempting many years to find way to make UV sensitive monochrome camera and have ruined several cameras doing this due to breaking tiny golden wires or damaging sensor structure. Here is my topic where I explained how I tried unsuccessfully debayering Samsung 5230 and JVC camcorder sensors using acetone, small swabs and razor: https://www.physicsf...-filter.599701/ Now after gaining experience, getting microscope and access to many solvents I want to try again my luck this with modern BSI CMOS sensor based camera. Backlit or back-illuminated CMOS sensors are different from older generation of CMOS or CCDs in that they do not have anymore in front of sensors electrodes which not only block some light but also make it vulnerable to debayering. Front sensors due to these electrodes also require microlens so their removal would inevitably reduce light sensitivity. BSI CMOS are much more sensitive to overall spectrum and especially UV which does not penetrate deep into most materials. So for these reasons I strongly recommend using cameras of 2013 year or later when BSI CMOS become started becoming popular. They have many advantages such 1080p support and so on. For long time I believed CCD are superior to CMOS due to signal amplification using transistors but was wrong. So camera I have now camera Fujifilm F500 which is not best camera due to fixed lens but what is affordable to risk destroying and as well compact. I already was able to remove IR/UV cut mirror so now I need to remove CFA as well. Here is photo of my camera sensor, luckily there are no golden wires exposed which would have to be first filled with resin to avoid breaking. Does anybody here have experience debayering modern CMOS sensor? I have access now to various solvents used to dissolve old painting overpaints and varnishes. From what I read in other forums it’s best to use strongly polar solvents such ethanol, MEK or acetone which is used myself because they easily dissolve plastics, acrylics and so on. I do have 99% ethanol with 1% MEK as well acetone, not sure which first to use. If this would fail I could try using nonpolar solvents such toluene or xylene. We use as last resort in oil painting overpaint removal or it’s softening solvent such as dimethylformamide or even toxic chlorinated solvents so I could test these too if CFA would be hard to remove with cotton micro swabs. Longer exposure to solvent also can help soften CFA, I actually submerged JVC gz mc100e camcorder sensor in acetone for day and that helped. It is enough to soften or „swell“ CFA so that it could scraped off gently with wooden or plastic needle or softer metal blade. Sodium hydroxide seems like too extreme but is very effective at stripping away organic matter such as paint. Microscope would came in here handy especially for smaller sensors. It’s very import to avoid damaging delicate circuitry, so camera could even be left turned on to monitor pixel health (unless there is risk of short circuit or static electricity), I think with backlit CMOS this risk should be lower. I seen also one person describing removal of CFA and microlens using air blasting with sodium bicarbonate which is softer than silicon dioxide sensor layer. It would be helpful to actually know what exactly materials are utilized in sensor production at least at surface to choose best CFA removal technique minimizing damage since trial and error option doesn’t work out so good.

All, I recently picked up the newer RF 70-200mm lens...the plan for this lens is predominantly full color photography with a UV/IR cut filter. I currently only have a Kolari UV/IR cut filter for it but I may obtain more UV/IR filters...not sure as I am happy with my other lenses/filter options for dedicated UV/IR photography currently. Initial testing....I started to notice some issues at longer exposures/higher ISO while doing some night sky photography. The first photo was taken using a Yongnuo 50/1.8 for comparison (no problems with this lens!). In regards to the issues I am observing with the RF 70-200, I am not sure what is causing the purple haze/hot spot. I wish I had a non-modified Canon body to mount the lens on for comparison but no such luck. My concern here is that these issues are a result of the use of a camera body with a full spectrum converted sensor. I would appreciate any feedback from this group. Is this IR reflection or something else? It gets worse at higher ISO and longer exposure. This seems internal to the lens as it occurs with or without the lens cap on. It does not change if pictures are taken in a dark room and the viewfinder is covered (ie...I don't think this is external light leak, but maybe I am wrong). Aside from file conversion there was no other processing of these images. I have also reached out to Canon to see if they have any thoughts and will update this thread with their feedback. Image_1572 Canon EOS RP (Full spectrum sensor conversion by Kolari Vision) Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R Yongnuo 50/1.8 prime lens Kolari Vision Hot mirror (UV/IR cut) Filter F9, ISO 100, 30min exposure CR3 converted to DNG by Adobe DNG Converter DNG Converted to (low quality) JPG by Adobe Lightroom Elements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Image_1622 Canon EOS RP (Full spectrum sensor conversion by Kolari Vision) RF70-200 @70mm Kolari Vision Hot mirror (UV/IR cut) Filter F4.5, ISO 100, 30 second exposure CR3 converted to DNG by Adobe DNG Converter DNG Converted to (low quality) JPG by Adobe Lightroom Elements *You can see a purple haze while taking a photo of the night sky ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Image_1623 Canon EOS RP (Full spectrum sensor conversion by Kolari Vision) RF70-200 @70mm Kolari Vision Hot mirror (UV/IR cut) Filter F2.8, ISO 100, 5 min exposure CR3 converted to DNG by Adobe DNG Converter DNG Converted to (low quality) JPG by Adobe Lightroom Elements *You can see a purple haze while taking a photo of the night sky ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Image_1624 Canon EOS RP (Full spectrum sensor conversion by Kolari Vision) RF70-200 @100mm Kolari Vision Hot mirror (UV/IR cut) Filter F32, ISO 100, 5 min exposure CR3 converted to DNG by Adobe DNG Converter DNG Converted to (low quality) JPG by Adobe Lightroom Elements *You can see a purple haze while taking a photo of the night sky, star trail visible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Image_1626 Canon EOS RP (Full spectrum sensor conversion by Kolari Vision) RF70-200 @70mm Kolari Vision Hot mirror (UV/IR cut) Filter F2.8, ISO 25600, 30 second exposure CR3 converted to DNG by Adobe DNG Converter DNG Converted to (low quality) JPG by Adobe Lightroom Elements *Lens cap on-you can see a purple haze with white hotspot

Thinking about converting a small camera to full spectrum. Camera can be converted without disassembly. If I don't replace the UV/IR filter in front of the sensor, the native camera lenses won't focus to infinity. The lenses probably don't work well with UV, but it would be nice to use them with IR. The original glass is .6mm x 12.6mm x 13.1 mm. Where can I order a glass sensor cover that doesn't impede UV light? Thanks, Doug A

Motivated by these threads https://www.ultravio...technical-data/ and https://www.ultravio...-uv-at-the-zoo/ , I decided to run my mirror lenses through a quick test - and I have more of them than I remembered I own the following lenses, all in M42-mount: MC 3M-5CA 500mm, f/8 MC 3M-6A 500mm, f/6.3 Soligor 500mm, f/8, /11, /16 (via a aperture weel, but I restricted myself to f/8 [Edit]this one is T-mount with EF-adapter[/Edit]) MC MTO 11CA 1000mm f/10 I took some shots in UV, VIS and IR, using the following cameras: UV: Canon EOS 6D, bayer-removed, internal X330C filter (I only show these, I also took control shots with the S8612, but on this subject the difference is basically half a stop in terms of brightness. Also good luck trying to fit a filter to a front lens of 105 mm, or squeeze it in somewhere at the back. For this basic comparison I didn't think it worth the hassle) VIS: Canon EOS 5DSR IR: Canon EOS 6D, fix converted to 700nm First an admission: not all of them were taken off the tripod, because especially with the 1000mm, I would have had to carry a very hefty tripod, and only had my small Manfrotto befree. So don't look too closely at sharpness, I rested the lenses on my rucksack and had to almost lie down to focus, so please go easy on me. If properly focussed, the Russian 500 f/8 and f/6.3 do have really good quality, and even the 1000 does not fare too bad, one just has to have a rock steady base, a lot of patience to focus in life-view, and no wind whatsoever Also, it's not possible to handhold the 500mm for UV-shots, but definitely for shots in VIS and IR, or at least leaning on something stable will be enough. That's why I'd be interested to see how far it reaches into UV, because this is a lens which might tag along on tourist trips, being quite small for a 500. A travel tripod will also be more than enough to stabilize this lens. In terms of bokeh, I chose bad subjects, because not shooting into the light there are not many of them What else, yes, distance to the building in front was about 190 m. Now, the photos, in post the only thing I did was to use a profile for white-balance to make the IR more easy on the eye, and to tweak exposure on the UV, to make them all about the same. MC 3M-5CA 500mm: UV, 0.6s, f/8, ISO 800 (-1 in LR) MC 3M-5CA 500mm: VIS, 1/60s, f/8, ISO 100 MC 3M-5CA 500mm: IR, 1/60s, f/8, ISO 100 MC 3M-6A 500mm: UV, 0.6s, f/6.3, ISO 800 (-1 in LR) MC 3M-6A 500mm: VIS, 1/100s, f/6.3, ISO 100 MC 3M-6A 500mm: IR, 1/60s, f/6.3, ISO 100 Soligor 500mm: UV, 0.3s, f/8, ISO 800 (-0.5 in LR) Soligor 500mm: VIS, 1/100s, f/8, ISO 100 Soligor 500mm: IR, 1/60s, f/8, ISO 100 MC MTO 11CA 1000mm: UV, 8s, f/10, ISO 800 (-1 in LR) MC MTO 11CA 1000mm: VIS, 1/100s, f/10, ISO 200 MC MTO 11CA 1000mm: IR, 1/40s, f/10, ISO 100

Hi, I wanted to buy some glass for my new 50R - original GF lenses are prohibitely expensive, I may buy them in the future, but for now wanted something cheaper. I have adapters from Nikon and M42 and tried all my Nikkon & M42 glass and they are from bad to medium, especially in wide ange. Normal and teles are already usable from Nikon. So the question is: which medium format has quite fast wide angle lenses that are usable on GFX using an adapter? If I want AF, is this too much? Impossible? From my findings I can see that "smc PENTAX-FA 645 35 mm F3.5 AL" is recommended as a very good wide angle lens. I see this comes in MF & newer AF version. I would like to use AF, but MF is also OK (focus helper is great in 50R and wide angle is easy with MF), is there any good P645->GFX adapter that supports AF, if not then which MF adapter is recomended? Or maybe which medium format system has a biggest number of good wide angle lenses and have GFX adapter for it? Last, strange question, I was looking for some kind of database for 35mm lenses image circle sizes (even only for Nikon) and I couldn't find any... I mean this is just a technical parameter - image circle size, say at infinity. I can find a lot of such data for medium & large format, but not for 35mm - Am I miss something? Anybody knows some page that list image circle sizes for 35mm lenses? Is this because all of them are supposed to cover image circle 43mm so not worth saying image circle size? From my initial research on 50R they differ *A LOT* even in Nikon lenses...

Hyperspectral imaging is here.... https://cubert-gmbh.com/

My interest in light didn't end when I studied laser physics in Hungary and didn't start in the UK while developing high power lasers. I'm now in Switzerland focused on the infrared part of the spectrum, NIR, SWIR, hyperspectral, multispectral. Continously collecting light: line and area scan cameras, optical simulations, spectrometers, slit goggles.. I'm DIY-optics (dot com) himself. ;) You have a very nice community here, I appreciate being a new member. Hello Everyone

After a long research I've decided that I will buy another 50R used body and convert it to full spectrum and remove CFA/bayer Filter. This shoudl eb the cheapest option IMHO to get very UV sensitive camera... I'm still not 100% sure about mono conversion - I've read in many places that R, G, B filters on pixel are very opaque to UV, even with full spectrum conversion. On one hand I gain a lot of sensitivity but on another I loose chance to see the famous "UV green" - so I'm 70% sure that I will go BB+mono and 30% sure that only BB. - If I choose just FS/BB then I already have a guy who will convert it for me in Poland (hhe did all my cameras excluding D600 mono) - But If I want mono - do you know any company or a guy who can comvert it within European Union? (I want to avoid sending outside and receiving because of customs etc.) I can't ask the guy who did that for my D600 because it was a pure experiment (I would call it brute force) and it is OK but parts of CFA were not removed at the sides etc.

Well looks like Phase One of all companies has been listening and has released a UV to IR camera, really a full imaging suite. Its just for the low low cost of only $120000.00. Yes you can make a down payment on a house or buy a 150 Mpixels full spectrum camera system. I am sure the wife and kids would understand. This is obviously targeted to museums and art imaging. https://digitization.phaseone.com/products/complete-solutions/multispectral-imaging/

I was studying stacking artifacts the other day, trying to understand halos appearing around petals of flowers (high contrast against dark background). I’d been seeing a lot of this in my Olympus in-camera visible stacks, so was puzzled. Soft halo looks like this around the petals.. I found a good description of the most common stacking gremlins here by Allan Walls Photography. He’s a macro photographer, and uses big stacks processed in Zerene. It’s a long video, but I found it well worth watching; here’s a summary from my notes. 1. Wiggly Worm - wormy things in the background. Caused by dust on the sensor. 2. Background Banding - caused by changes in lighting between stack shots, common with flash. Minimized by using continuous lighting, or in Pshop blur the entire background. 3. Ghosting - caused by motion in the background ie clouds, water, grass. Run an extra pass in Zerene using higher settings and retouch. 4. Echo - caused by motion in the foreground. Remove the frames with echoes from the stack, or reshoot. 5. Halos - soft halos are caused by stacking software becoming slightly confused trying to smooth areas with high contrast, worse with light subject on black backgrounds. Big blurry halos can be caused by variations in light source; psychedelic halos bleeding into the background can be caused by lighting or shots in the stack being in the wrong order. Tight, hard halos with chunks are sometimes found in dmap stacks - increase estimation radius and rerun. Generally stacking with pmax will overcome soft and color bleed halos. I found the Zerene help page very useful - for the differences in pmax vs. dmap stacking and how to retouch using one or the other or individual stack images. For Oly shooters, my conclusions after a little bit of study is that the halos are not a function of the camera or the lens, they are a function of the in-camera stacking software, and maybe the lighting. So I will probably forgo the Olympus in-camera stacking (turn focus stacking off), and just do individual shots (turn focus bracketing on and start focus on closest part of the subject) and do all my stacking in Zerene. I think Oly's in-camera stacking works ok most of the time, but simple bracketing and export to better stacking software seems to be the right plan for my flowers against a black background. The new OMDS OM-1 camera seems to treat focus stacking/bracketing the same as the EM-1 series does. I haven't done many in-camera stacks in the ultraviolet because of the longish shutter speeds, but have not seen soft halos in those images.

The title of this topic should be "Fumble Along with Me" while I try to figure out this camera yet once again. I started learning about a year ago but then I got side-tracked with other efforts and situations. Today I began again and took 4 filters and the S1R out to my kitchen patio and simply tried to figure out whether or not the sensor was good enough to "see through" some typical UV/IR filters. Camera: S1R Conversion Lens: Kuribayashi K.C. Petri Orrikor 35mm f/3.5 Lens Aperture Mode @ f/11. A somewhat random white balance, so please excuse me this time for the fact that I forgot to record how I made it! Framing: 16:9, one of my favorites. Viewfinder only focus. I didn't use the monitor to set these snapshots because it was too bright outdoors. Focus peaking: ON, yellow, 0 sensitivity (the baseline setting). These are handheld shots. The JPG inside the RW2 raw file was extracted in Photo Mechanic. No edits were made to these JPGs. Observation: Yes, I could "see through" these filters in the viewfinder at f/11. So, wow! I did rotate the Kuri pre-set ring to open to better see through the 4mm thick U-340, no surprise that made it better. Observation: Even though I could see through the filters, the S1R focus peaking worked wonderfully well and is a great aid. Observation: The S1R batteries do not last very long. Carry 2 or 3 with you when shooting. Observation: The S1R is heavier than some cameras. I find that steadying, but YMMV. The S1R also has stabilization which is a very good thing methinks for our dark filters. The JPG size is 1920 x 1280. Click photo to enlarge. B+W 092 IR-Pass Filter I really do like this photo in its current false colors. "-) 1/160" @ ISO-100 Baader UV/IR-Cut Filter The vignetting is my fault. For use over a wide-angle lens, Baader 48mm filters should be rear mounted or removed from ring and re-mounted in a different kind of front filter holder. Must do this, Andrea. No more slacking. 1/400" @ ISO-100 BaaderU UV-Pass Filter Same remark about vignetting. Range of times 1/10", 1/6" and 1/5" @ ISO-100 Excellent times for basic UV like this when at base ISO and f/11. U-340 x 4.0 mm UV-Pass Filter Small amounts of IR are passed unless an IR-blocker is used. Given the high amounts of UV at this altitude, I don't really see any IR contamination in this particular photo. But that observation would need to be revisited for proof. I did need to boost the ISO for this thick filter. I went to ISO-800 but I think that was a bit too high. ISO-400 would have been sufficient when combined with the stabilization. 1/4" @ ISO-800 Unfiltered This unfiltered version would be more meaningful if I had tackled a white balance measurement before shooting. It's never difficult on a Lumix to measure WB, so I promise to learn that before making any more posts with the S1R. 1/400" @ ISO-100