Search the Community

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_GFX100#GFX100_IR Anybody knows about its spectral sensitivity, especially in UV? I'm considering this camera instead of modifying my 50R...

I wanted to show you how Atom Nikkor (35/1.4 Ai - thorum glass version) works on Fujifilm GFX 50R. Full res photos are here: https://teststats.cncf.io/backups/atom-gfx-50r/ Note that the center is sharp, but when you go to edge it becomes a bit soft, and when you go to corner it just becomes unsharp. All photos were shoot in 6x7 mode - normal 4x3 mode causes black corners - vingetting is so high, that on f=16 you just see black circle cut off and on f=1.4 corners are almost black. 6x7 is the biggest you can get without hard black vingette on f=16. The best woudl be to use 1x1 square... which requires 46.6 mm image circle. Most were shot using manual focus aid at f=1.4 and then stopped down to f=8,11 (some may be f=5.6 or f=16). Smaller previews here:

EDITOR'S NOTE: UPDATE 19 MAY 2022. My full spectrum converted Panasonic S1R produces false colours in white balanced, reflected UV photographs which are slightly different from what we have seen so far with full spectrum conversions used with broadband UV-pass filters. There seems to be more dark cyan-green or green. We are thinking that this indicates a slightly different Bayer dye somewhere in the Bayer filter. Anyway, I think I therefore need to add to the discussion the fact that false-color-to-wavelength charts are only good for the specific camera from which they are made in case that has not been obvious. Or, for those of you who think that false-color-to-wavelength charts are not good for general use, now you have another reason why. They may vary by camera. EDITOR'S NOTE: 2015.01.13 We have chosen to carefully edit some small parts of this very interesting thread in accordance with our stated UVP Rules & Guidelines. The edited posts are marked. During the time when the first part of this thread was locked, we continued the discussion in another thread. The two threads have now been merged. Hello everyone! My name is Sascha from the south east of Germany. I have been a "UV enthusiast" since four years now. My main interest lays in the area of dental research and to find useful applications for reflected UV imaging and autofluorescence. During my research it was necessary to specify the actual response of a full spectrum converted Panasonic Lumix G3 (and Nikon D70). I have noticed similar charts on the excellent and extensive blog of Dr Klaus Schmitt here: http://m8.i.pbase.co..._UVcolors_c.jpg However, Dr Schmitt rarely comments on his equipment combination and I assume his standardized chart is meant to be more of a generalized reflected UV palate. Initial research results indicated that this chart was unable to project the false color effect accurately. My aim was to determine the UV sensitivity of a full spectrum converted Panasonic Lumix G3 and also to specify the false color response from the sensor. I had received some great advice from Dr Enrico Savazzi on the aspect of white balancing and the general set up of the camera. Materials and Method: 1. Light source: Stellarnet SL-3 Deuterium light source. 2. H10 UV Monochromator (Jobin Yvon) to scan through the different wavelengths (slit size 25 mµ) 3. Ocean Optics USB 2000 UV/VIS spectrometer to confirm the wavelength accuracy. 4. Panasonic Lumix G3 with full spectrum conversion. Results: This particular camera showed a UV response from 400 nm to 266 nm downwards. It was necessary to increase the exposure time from 4 sec to 60 sec while the ISO was kept consistently at 160, from 310 nm downwards. An increase in ISO did not seem to make any difference in the response at wavelengths lower than 310 nm. Merely the noise increased. As it so happens these colors are not 100% correct. They contain a small amount of IR harmonies which is difficult to cancel out. However, they represent a fairly accurate picture about the UV sensitivity of a converted G3 and its false color representation. Note, my chart differs quiet noticeably from that of Dr Schmitt. The influence of a UV transmissive lens is not considered of course. This is likely to have further effects: either weaker signals at wavelengths below 300 nm or a change of the false color interpretation or a combination of both. Regards Sascha

I have a full spectrum converted Panasonic Gx85. It is on the list of cameras that have the dreaded IR shutter monitor, both here and on the Kolari site, so I decided to run some tests. I assumed that longer exposures and higher ISO settings would show any IR contamination better. I ran a series of tests with a body cap mounted instead of a lens: ISO 200 to 25600 @ 60 seconds, and 5 to 60 seconds @ ISO 3200, which I thought was the upper end of practical ISOs The camera settings were as follows: Aspect Ratio: 4:3 Picture Size 4592x3448 Quality: RAW + fine JPEG Shutter Type: MSHTR Extended ISO: OFF Color Space: sRGB Silent Mode: OFF iDynamic: OFF iResolution: OFF Shading Comp: OFF Diffraction Compensation: OFF White Balance: Daylight Mode: M I then examined the raw files in RawTherapee, and used ShareX to capture screen shots of the RawTherapee display to post here. The black border is there to show the lighter band along the edge, which is almost imposible to perceive on a white background. 60 seconds ISO 25600 with Long Shutter NR: OFF and the Neutral profile in RawTherapee: The lighter band along the upper and right edges can be seen more clearly using Raw Therapee's Auto Matched ISO High profile 60 seconds ISO 25600 with Long Shutter NR: OFF and the Auto Matched ISO High profile in RawTherapee: Turning on Long Shutter NR, which subtracts an identical frame taken with the shutter closed gives a nice even field: 60 seconds ISO 25600 with Long Shutter NR: ON and the Auto Matched ISO High profile in RawTherapee: It looks to me like this camera does not exhibit any IR shutter monitor contamination, unless my test methodology is flawed somehow? An unmodified G85 produces almost identical results. Steve

So it would seem that camera sensors can made a great deal of difference in the raw color outcome of a reflected UV photograph. I'm only having mild panic about this. Given the current state of the world, it seems ridiculous to have any panic at all over photographic trivia. But I am worried that quite a lot of what has been written here over the last 9 years about false colors and raw false colors in reflected UV photography might be, at best, incomplete, and at worst, erroneous or misleading. In the past I've used converted Nikons, a Pentax, a little Lumix and a Sony. They all produced the same false color results whether raw or white balanced. Then along comes the S1R and all my false color facts have been upended. Well, so it goes..... Here is an old photo of Spectralon under SB-140 flash (with its SW-5UV filter) made with a Nikon D600 conversion + UV-Nikkor + BaaderU. Here is a recent Spectralon photo under filtered SB-140 flash made with a Panasonic S1R conversion + UV-Nikkor + BaaderU. It's about 49* different on the color wheel from the preceding. That's quite a lot of difference. So now what? Should I wade through 9 years of topics looking for false color comments to update? Seems rather daunting. Maybe we should just start a new edition of the forum with new Stickies, etc. That seems kind of drastic. Any suggestions welcomed !!! By the way, anybody remember how upset I get when people try to make false color to wavelength correlations and don't realize or take into account how many variables are involved in producing false color? Refer to this topic for one more such variable. I keep hoping I made some sort of stupy mistake. And once I discover it, the second photo will immediately flip into that nice 13* orangey-red.

I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on a full spectrum modified Canon R5 from Kolari Vision. I currently have a full spectrum Canon 6D (naked sensor) with some OK results using ZWB1 + BG38 filters with 365nm UV torches. Just wondering if anyone has any experience with recent Canon sensors (R5, R6, etc) shooting UV reflected images? I am aware of the internal infrared shutter sensor issue, but it only apllies to RF lenses. Adapting EF lenses seems to rectify the problem. My intension is to use a Kolari EF-RF adaptor with filter slot. Also, I would purchase a IDAS EF-RF filter drawer adaptor so that I can use 52mm & 48mm filters - could be useful for a Baader 2" UV Venus filter. I would be grateful for any feedback in general about such a system.

Hi I'm considering buying a mirrorless camera. I could buy Nikon Z - it has 55mm mount but no medium format cameras yet. There is Fujifilm GFX 50R which uses 44x33 mm sensor (medium format digital, crop factor 0.8). I decided a long long (many year back) that I will buy mirrorless only when medium format one is affordable, well GFX 50R is. Now since I have tons of Nikkor lenses, I've found that there is a Nikon-F -> GFX adapter that can even auto-focus! https://www.ebay.pl/itm/352867669954?hash=item52288d57c2:g:hmIAAOSwHWBgdBD8 Now I have 2 questions, maybe somebody already tried this: 1) Will this make a photo using full 44x33mm without cropping to FF 36x24? (asking because 44x33mm is not that bigger than 36x24mm so I want to use full sensor and I'm accepting very very heavy vingetting from lenses not designed to cover 44x33 (but image circle from 36x24 is at least about 43mm - so it should cover 44x33mm sensor's width at least, also all depends on lens and aperture). Also all my EL Nikkors (75/4, 80/5.6 and 105/5.6) make a bigger image circle than FF. 2) Will auto focus work only on AF-S lenses (I only have one) or also on AF-D (screw) lenses (have a lot) or even maybe with Ai(-s) (just like TC-16A)? I'm OK if that works with AF-S and AF-D. If I put TC-16A over that conversion, it will probably autofocus Ai lenses too? Anybody know answer? If (1) is not force cropping to FF and (2) AF-D lenses will auto focus then I will look for GFX 50R and send it directly to maxmax for full spectrum conversion...

Could normal photography fast prime lenses be use for UV photography? I want to buy very fast APS-C format lens. Unfortunately fused silica or UV lens are rare and cost too much and finding cheap fast normal lens is a challenge. Best speed and price ratio I could find was Kamlan 50mm F/1.1 lens. It is great price for such high aperture lens and from reviews I can see that image quality is good enough, there is some softness on edges but it's totally acceptable. What is not clear to me is how lens will perform in ultraviolet spectrum. I will mainly focus 365-370nm range to do UV reflectography.

Don't get too excited. Despite the grand title, the results are a little disappointing. Part of this is the fault of my equipment being insufficient for the job, but a lot of it is apparently the moon's fault. It just doesn't vary that much with wavelength, seemingly! But a negative result is still a result as they say, so here you are... Equipment -TriWave camera (germanium-on-CMOS sensor), which has sensitivity from 350-1600nm -Thorlabs 1" 100mm mounted achromatic doublet lens, AR-coated for 1050-1700nm -Thorlabs SM1 Lever-actuated Iris Diaphragm (for controlling aperture) -Thorlabs Filter Mount with Sliding Modular Inserts (with a bunch of the inserts for holding my filters. These are very convenient. You slide the filters back and forth for quick swaps.) -Various Thorlabs SM1 tubes and C-mount adaptors for hooking things together and holding them at the correct distance. -The filters are a mix of Omega seconds from eBay for NIR, and high quality Thorlabs filters in the SWIR (1200nm+). -INOGENI USB 3.0 NTSC video capture card (because the TriWave is analog output) Software - Custom written MATLAB code for snapping bursts of images and saving them - Lynkeos astronomy software for aligning images and weeding out low quality ones - Photoshop Resolution was severely limited by the optics in this case, although the TriWave is only 640x480. I was using only about 128x128px of that, however, due to the 100mm lens. If I get a longer lens, I may try again with higher resolution. Each of these individual images is boiled down from a stack of 600 photos each, but the Lynkeos software throws out many of the bad frames before the rest are averaged together.

Does anyone have the length & width dimensions of the ICF for the D300s? Thanks

Sigma fp Full Spectrum Conversion. Probably my last conversion, maybe my last camera...? I have converted a new Sigma fp, Bayer full frame mirrorless camera to full spectrum. I have to say it was probably the easiest camera I have converted. KolariVision have shown the insides online. Here is a test with a four filter Sparticle, of the UV capability of the converted Sigma fp camera, with a UVA capable lens .

Today I would like to report something about UV sensitivity and the color differentiation of my camera bodies. First to the cameras: It is a Canon EOS 500 D (in Japan EOS Kiss X3, in North America EOS Rebel T1i), an APS-C camera with approx. 15 MP, and a Canon 6 D, a full-frame Camera with approx. 20 MP. I de-filtered the 500 D according to the instructions from Gary Honis (http://dslrmodifications.com/rebelmod450d1.html). As a replacement for the removed filter, I used a quartz cover glass from microscopy (cut to size). The 6D I had de-filtered professionally (http://www.astro-modifikationen.de). The filter structure of the 6 D is more complex. Only the top two (dust vibrator and original white balance filter) of the three filters were removed. One protective glass remains on the sensor. Unfortunately I have neither a calibrated spectrometer nor a suitable monochromator for measurements. Of course I am interested in individual measurement curves for filters and lenses as well as sensitivity curves for sensors, but – on the other hand - for photography only the interaction of all parts is relevant to me. This is why I have chosen the following method for my comparisons, which comes very close to the real situation when photographing in sunlight: I used the midday sun as a light source. The light falls through a slit onto a grating (made from a DVD). I then focused the spectrum generated in this way through my UV filter (here: Baader-U) and the lens (50 mm magnifying lens, mounted on a suitable helicoid) on the camera sensor. The spectra can be seen twice each, above with the camera-internal white balance to sunlight, below with white balance from reflected sunlight to matt PTFE. So I can see which parts of the sunlight are used in which intensity for the picture (with a white motif) and which wavelengths correspond to which false colors. The Fraunhofer lines disturb the overall impression a little, but also allow an internal wavelength calibration. Canon EOS 6 D-FS Canon EOS 500 D-FS Conclusions The sensitivity of the EOS 6 D-FS does not reach as deep into the UV range as the 500 D-FS. This is probably not due to the sensor, but to the remaining filter glass. The color differentiation is stronger with the 500 D-FS. The longer wave range is shown more violet with the 500 D-FS and more bluish with the 6 D-FS. The shorter-wave area is shown greener on the 500 D-FS than on the 6 D-FS. Overall, with this method I can clearly see which filter-lens-camera combination can display which UV area. In further posts I can show lens comparisons and comparisons with other light sources.

Excitingly, I'm finally switching to a better camera system, better for my kind of hobby that is. Canon EF is a great mount but the mirror is too much of a nuisance for me truth be told. I have sourced a nearly new Sony a6000 and when I receive it and try it out, I will be sending it to https://irrecams.de/en/ for a full spectrum conversion. (Bonus question about that, Mr. Sven Lamprecht says he uses a "280nm longpass" for the full spectrum conversion. Has anyone here used his services and can confirm it works well for UV? He has been very nice dealing with me, even going as far as providing a tech sheet for the material (see below) but he says he doesn't know the chemical composition. I don't want to bad-mouth him in any way, just a little nervous about the fact that I don't know what exactly is being used and I can't look up the transmission graph. Refraciitve Index n (587,6 nm): 1.512 Specific gravity ρ (g/cm³): 2.52 Transformation Temperature Tg (°C): 586 Sag Temperature Ts (°C): 656 Mean coefficient of linear thermal expansion α × 10‑⁷(°C): 81 Acid durability DA: 1 Water Durability DW: 4 50 % Maximal Transmission λt 50% (nm): 280 +- 9 Temperature coefficient Tk (nm/ °C): 0,02 Rambling out of the way though. I am wondering what adapters might be the most useful to me as a new owner of a mirrorless camera. I have quickly looked up what eBay has to offer, and I have found three objects of interest. https://www.ebay.com/itm/182743183652 https://www.ebay.com/itm/303699154264 https://www.ebay.com/itm/282595837363 What do you guys think of those? Anything else I should get? My most preferred feature would be if the adapter could be at least 1mm shorter than the flange the lenses were designed for, to allow for better infinity focus in UV. I have ran into issues with this several times now on the EF mount. But any other recommendations I appreciate, budget helicoid rings would be great, any adapters for other commonly used vintage (or even current) mounts, anything that you have found useful for full spectrum and derived shooting. Thanks.

Tried a UV landscape today with the Pentax K-1 using the pixel shift resolution setting. This moves the sensor one pixel, four times, to capture full frames of rbg. Used my standard in camera UV custom WB. Instead of a normal UV picture it has a major yellow cast. Visible light photos using pixel shift have the same WB as standard. Any ideas why this occurs? Haven't had time to open the Raw in Silkypix to see if it fixes things. There does't appear to be any way in camera to set a custom pixel shift WB. Guess I'll have to live with it. Thanks, Doug A

Maxmax says that CFA removal results in 6x the UV sensitivity compared to stock. I assume this includes the effects of removal of both the hot mirror and the CFA. For those with experience, how much incremental UV sensitivity do you get from removing the CFA on a full spectrum camera? What is the net effect on image quality of the removal of microlenses and the CFA? Would you do it again or just go full spectrum?

People who might happen to follow my posts closely on here might have seen my post about upgrading. I leaned towards buying an a6000 from a technician in the UK for around 500 GBP, but alas, Brexit screwed me over. Turns out I would have to pay over 200 GBP more just to import the camera, which I cannot afford. I mean I could, but it's really not worth it to me to pay 700 GBP for an a6000, a 2014 model. There are obviously other sellers, even ones that sell a6000 cameras. One is from Greece, which means that shipping would be A LOT cheaper for me. https://www.ebay.com/itm/184264643102?hash=item2ae707521e:g:xpsAAOSwmwheoaSt It is actually significantly cheaper as is too, it has more clicks but I suppose that's ok. I just don't know about whether borosilicate is a good material for UV. I really don't want to settle for something that does not have a well-and-alive mount and that has less than 24mp. I want the camera to last for some time and I want to utilize budget Chinese manual lenses. Sony cameras with their good ISO performance seem like the perfect match for me. Edit: I did also message Kolari like some of you suggested, they do have a good deal on the a6000 right now indeed, but seeing as they're from the US and I'm in the EU, I will probably have to face exorbitant import fees with them as well.

There have been endless, deep, on-going online discussions about how to measure a camera sensor to determine which one is "best". DxOMark is one website which has been posting their sensor measurements for years now. While one may quibble with their process, their listings still serve as a relative guide to which sensor has the best ISO capabilities, the largest dynamic range and the most color sensitivity. One of our members elsewhere mentioned wanting to upgrade from an existing camera to get one with better ISO capability and wider dynamic range. That triggered my visit to DxOMark this evening to see which sensors are currently "best" and what their numbers were. I'm going to report that here. But please read it in a relaxed mode! Such a report should not trigger defensive or highly technical arguments either pro or con, OK? We all know that a camera does not exist by its numbers alone regardless of who is doing the measurement. Note: The Fuji X-trans sensors are not measured by DxOMark. DxOMark's ISO measurement is labeled "Sports". For each sensor, the highest ISO is reported which gives a SNR of at least 30dB while maintaining a dynamic range of at least 9 stops and a color sensitivity of at least 18 bits. Here are the highest ISO scores for the given brands. (Because of personal curiosity, I have also included the highest ranking Panasonic from the G line which is never the highest ranking Panasonic.) Canon R3: 4086 Sony A7 III: 3722 [Correction: A7R -> A7] Panasonic S1R: 3525 Nikon Z6 II: 3303 Pentax K-1: 3280 Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark II: 1312 Panasonic GH5 II: 1136 [Correction: G5 -> GH5] (Olympus has some explaining to do about that absurd designation!) DxOMark's Dynamic Range measurement at base ISO is labeled "Landscape" and is measured in EVs (stops). As ISO increases, dynamic range decreases. 12 EV or greater is excellent. Differences of 1/2 EV are usually not noticeable. Nikon D850: 14.8 EV Sony A7R IV: 14.8 EV Canon R3: 14.7 EV Pentax K-1: 14.6 EV Panasonic S1: 14.5 EV Panasonic GH5 II: 13.1 EV Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark II: 12.8 EV DxOMark's Color Depth measurement at base ISO is labeled "Portrait" and is measured in bits. As ISO increases, color sensitivity decreases rapidly. 22.0 bits or greater is excellent. Differences of 1 bit or less are barely noticeable. Nikon D850: 26.4 bits Panasonic S1R: 26.4 bits Sony A7R III: 26.0 bits Pentax K-1: 25.4 bits Canon R5: 25.3 bits Panasonic GH5: 23.9 bits Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark II: 23.7 bits I have found that good high ISO capability is very useful in reflected UV photograph which is inherently noisy. Also cranking the ISO lets us shorten exposures which are always rather long in UV. I also think that a wide dynamic range is useful so that all those UV-dark areas in a photo will hold some detail. The color sensitivity is probably less important because we really clobber the colors when performing a UV white balance on a file.

Hello, fellow UVP members. I joined this forum a few months ago, and ever since, I have had a lot of fun browsing and posting things. But there's been one thing about this hobby that has irked me since I started - the camera I have to use. It is an old Canon EOS model, that being the 1100D. It works well enough, but I have grown dissatisfied with it's performance. It has horrible noise capabilities, low dynamic range, only 12mp, the glass that has been placed on the sensor instead of the hot mirror also attracts dust for some reason. It doesn't help that it also has an outdated flange distance, preventing me from adopting many lenses or using modern ones. (such as many budget 7artisans models, I like these little manual lenses) I have saved up quite some money and I'm looking for an upgrade, it definitely should be a mirrorless. DSLRs have some cool perks but they are a dead technology at this point, with Canon recently abandoning that market. I have quickly browsed and found two deals of interest. https://www.ebay.com/itm/185256430719 https://www.ebay.com/itm/185256430728 What do you think about those deals? (mainly asking about price) I have a few requirements I'd like my new camera to fulfill, preferably for the least amount of money possible, again, I'm a student and this is a hobby. I might have some options to make money off of it later as I've recently had an acquaintance express that she like the creepy look of IR portraits and the gritty textured look of UV portraits and that she'd be interested in having me portrait her, giving me some money for it too. Those requirements are: -decent noise performance up to ISO 400 -better dynamic range than my current camera (my channels are clipping constantly and it's a pain) -ability to shoot UV (so please tell me if certain models are known to not be good for UV) -small flange -small sensors are fine, could even be m43 but preferably APSC, I suppose full frame isn't happening at my budget anyhow -IBIS and/or pixel shift would be great but I suppose that won't happen unless I blow my savings Don't really care for much else. Feel free to suggest any brand you feel is best, and please do tell me how much should I expect to pay. I have little experience in used converted camera market. Thank you!

The Horizon line of swing-lens cameras, made until recently by KMZ of Krasnogorsk, were a relatively common type of panoramic film camera from the 1950s until about 2012, when production may have ceased (I am not sure about this point.) NOS examples of their later products can still be had for non-astronomical prices, and emboldened by my success with the Spinner, I decided to obtain one: Although limited to a 120 degree field of view, this camera is less of a toy than the Spinner, has far more options to control exposure, and offered the possibility of better image quality. But what about the UV bandpass of the lens? A pinhole test was awkward to stage, but I managed to get one (posted here as a composite:) Not as good as the Spinner's but far from terrible--at least as good as the Autocord's, and perhaps approaching that of the old Asahi 35, which passes down to 345-350 nm. So far, so good. But what to do about a filter? This camera takes weird little bespoke filters which only the factory made, containing small glass disks. So I ordered a couple of 15mm ZWB1 disks (my wife teased me about ordering a package containing black dots) and with my son's help and a 3-d printer, a modified filter was improvised: Next step: load up the trusty Delta 3200 and go shooting! Unfortunately, the camera chose this roll of film to start manifesting a nasty light leak around the perimeter of the rotating turret (I sent it in for repair based on this finding.) The following images are thus somewhat spoiled, but I present them here anyway because they tell us a great deal about the possibility of this camera, and I trust the leak will be a fixable problem. The images were taken with the camera on a monopod, though handholding would be reasonable for some; typical exposure was 1/60 or 1/125 second at f/11. Some have complained that the camera's lens goes soft at f/16 but when I tried that I did not observe this in UV. The least spoiled of the images is this panorama of Medano Creek in Alamosa County, Colorado: Exposure looks good at a working ISO of 50, and detail in the distant trees looks good enough that there seems little trouble with focus shift. A panorama of Cottonwood Pass in Gunnison County turned out similarly: Two yellow road signs at the right margin turned out black as expected: There is no horizontal fall-off of sharpness toward the side as there would be with a fixed-lens camera. There is a small amount of vertical fall-off. In the fading light, I tried a longer exposure (1 second) of the Twin Lakes reservoir area in Lake County. The restroom building in the midground looks reasonably sharp, the acuity being limited by film grain as much as by the optics: And finally, lest anyone doubt that these are UV images, one may examine these roadside Helianthus petiolaris specimens excerpted from a different frame: In the future, when the camera is fixed, I would like to try this again, perhaps ultimately with finer-grained film. Aside from the light leak, everything worked reasonably well, and the pictures are definitely a step up in quality from those obtained with the Spinner, though they lack the full-circle sweep of those.

My newest comment inspired me to look up high definition thermal infrared and I found this.

I carry Pentax K-1 full spectrum with Ioriginal 35, Nikon El-Nikkor 80 & 135 for UV. This also includes Igoriginal ZWB1/BG39 52mm filter stack, two helicoids, and Vivitar UV converted 283 flash. Unfortunately, I haven't fixed the major hotspot the 35-90 helicoid causes with the EL-Nikkor 135. The Pentax bellows is immune to hotspots and accompanies the 135. For IR the Pentax 18-55 ( the 16-45 hotspots), 55-300 cover most everything. I have a Kolari IRChrome filter for the 16-45 ( it doesn't cause major hotspots, but only covers down to ~24). There is room for some consolidation. I have a Pentax 24-35 that does well with IR and would replace 16-45. I need to modify one of the flashes to convert from UV to IR and UV fluorescence. Fixing the 35-90 helicoid would allow leaving the bellows home. How much stuff do you carry. Thanks, Doug A

Testing of Sigma 30mm f2.8 dn lens prior to UV adventures I followed Pedro Aphalo’s post on using his Olympus EM1 (thank you Pedro), and found a used Sigma 30mm f2.8 dn lens at B&H photo in New York - it rattled a bit out of the box, but B&H is reputable here in the US, so went ahead and tried it out. In the visible as my UV filter hasn’t arrived yet. Olympus EM1mk2, full conversion by Kolari Vision. Kolari Vision Hotcut filter (figured it would mimic the glass they pried off the sensor… :-)) Used a 10mm tube - focused at about 2” from subject to filter. Shot wide open at f/2.8, iso 200, 1/20 sec with ambient indoor light. Focus bracketing in camera, 10 shots at differential = 7. Stack processed in Photoshop. I focused initially probably too far into the head as the fuzzies closest aren’t quite in focus. More practice needed…. Dandelion head looks like my grandson's haircut.... Result for the Sigma 30mm DN in visible is pretty good I think on my rig. The lens seems to be ok, and autofocus works. Now I’m off the the garden center to find a florescent flower with my little Kolari UV flashlight to work UVIF with tonight. The flashlight probably isn’t very strong.. need to get specs from KolariVision. It works well on a highlighter and vaseline though, but I probably need more research on proper UV light sources.

Hi, sorry for lame question, I've entirelly missed the polaroid era. I'm asking about this: https://www.ebay.pl/itm/304230053774?hash=item46d586378e:g:wZMAAOSwCfddgg81 How does it work? Is this something like those fancy instant cameras that print photos immediatelly after shoot? I dream about instant medium format, have Pentax 67 and had Fuji GW690 III in the past. They both take roll film 120 that needs to be developed and scanned later. is it possible to have a "polaroid" back for this GX680 that instantly prints photos? If so that would be *so great* - I would be able to compose through a viewfinder, use tilt & shifts and make photos instantly, even if one shot would be $15 I would go that way and buy the system... Is it possible? How does it work? WOW I actually love this: Now I need to figure out how exactly this works and where can I buy those "polaroid sheets" to be used for each shot. I would actually have better than digital because I would have printed photos for each shot out of the box. Is it leaving some "negative" or whatever, sio I can later scan it just like a developed film? Also it seems like the frame size is rather 4x5 size... strange, GX680 gives 56x76 negatives - really need to fill my knowledge gap becaus ethis looks almost "too good" for me - where is the bad part? Maybe it's already impossible to buy polaroid films?

I got my Nons Fuji instax mini film camera last month and finally had a chance to test it out for UV. With Pentax UAT lens wide open (f4.5) I got a great photo at 1 second with ISO 800 (what instax film is fixed at) on my Olympus Em1mk1 full spectrum converted camera This is same ISO 800, f4.5 UAT 1 second shutter speed on Nons camera: Its about 1 or 2 stops less sensitive. My lights were 2 UVB bulbs, which are bad for UVA with the Baader venus u filter, which I used. But if any other dye would pick up the deeper UV I wanted to know. So in a pinch it could be a fun and different UV look. The Nons camera is available to purchase here: https://nonscamera.com/ The kit lens isn't so good into UV, maximum about 380nm if even that. Its very blue white balance when I tested it. But works very well on the camera.

Hi, I'm considering buying camera & converting it to UV-only (so I can use any lens) - but this is expensive and irreversible operation - can anybody recommend a company which can do it and filter selection? I want Nikon-F - this is limiting - I know - but I have 25 or more lenses for this system. I want to buy Nikon Df camera and directly send it to a company who will do the conversion, but I want this to be made really good, considering all options, so prefer to wait no rush.