Search the Community

I just noticed that QHY and ZWO have monochrome cameras with the huge sony 60Mpixel IMX455 sensor found in the Sony A7Rm4. These are the QHY 600 and ZWO ASI6200. https://www.highpointscientific.com/zwo-asi6200-pro-usb3-point-zero-cooled-monochrome-camera-asi6200mm-p?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=ZWO-ASI6200MM-P&gclid=Cj0KCQiAoIPvBRDgARIsAHsCw08yFrMv0LHF5klkzDx01zboF89FnAyQKDz3Cf68qt90yGI-PkZ_pZgaAps2EALw_wcB ZWO also has an add on computer accessory to link to a smart phone with the new pro version expected to be only $300. So for $4300, not a bad monochrome option. I wonder what its UV potential is? Not sure if it would have the UVB robbing coverglass in place. But would have microlenses on sensor for better sensitivity, so maybe a trade off.

This is "good to know that such things exist" technical information about Olympus microscopy equipment for imaging at 248 nm. The main purpose of this equipment seems to be imaging of semiconductor wafers at resolutions beyond those possible with VIS light. http://www.olympusca...%20Brochure.pdf Some points gleaned from the brochure: This equipment is for incident axial illumination of specimens, not transmitted illumination. The light source uses an 80 W mercury-xenon bulb. The bulb housing appears to be a standard Olympus part, but in this case it is mounted separately from the microscope and connected to the illumination module by a liquid light guide, probably to eliminate vibration sources. The illumination and imaging module mounts below the tube lens (and therefore eliminates the need to use a special tube lens) but on top of a VIS axial illuminator. Presumably the VIS illuminator must be used with its beam splitter or fluorescence cube out of the imaging path, so simultaneous VIS and UVC illumination is likely not possible (except with VIS emitted by the xenon-mercury bulb). Simultaneous DUV imaging and DUV-excited VIS fluorescence observation and imaging might in principle be possible. The objectives have no cemented elements. We already know one reason for this. An additional reason in this case is that optical cement degrades quickly at these wavelengths. There is virtually no information about the DUV camera.

Remembered an old Ponder & Best /Vivitar 105mm F4.5, three element enlarging lens in storage. Paid $10 for two of them with a load of photo stuff I purchased. Diagram shows 3 air spaced elements. There is a very slight yellowish coating. Lens seems to record UV yellow as well as the El-Nikkor 80 & 135 and the Igoriginal 35mm F3.5 lens. With 3 elements, I'm not sure if it is as sharp. More testing required. Custom WB camera preset, based on block wrapped in plumber's tape . Silkypix Raw converter used to slightly adjust WB and increase color saturation. Adobe Photoshop Elements 11 provided slightl cropping, resizing, and sharpening. Camera: Pentax K-1 full frame modified by Kolari Vision for full spectrum Lens: Ponder & Best/Vivitar 105mm enlarging lens on Pentax bellows. Filter: Igoriginal supplied ZWB-1 2mm and BG39 2.3mm Exposure: F11 3 seconds at ISO 400 in sunlight Comments welcome. Thanks for looking, Doug A

This question just came to me and I decided to post here in case anyone has any examples. I know there are various technologies, some for special uses, some outdated, that use different ways of making a color image besides what you usually find in digital cameras today. The two examples I can list off the top of my head are: 1. Foveon sensors 2. Some old P&S cameras that I believe have a different Bayer array filter configuration, not two green, one red, one blue but magenta, green, yellow and cyan. Does anyone know how those react to UV? Does anyone have examples of other obscure sensor technologies? Please post below if you do. Thanks!

This is oddly interesting camera: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1221830697/pinsta-instant-camera-micro-darkroom-and-negative-enlarger?ref=checkout_rewards_page Its a 0.3mm pinhole camera, so no glass and it records its images mostly on positive photo paper at 4x5 inches. Harman positive photo paper is recommended. The funny thing about that paper that I was reading is its only sensitive to UV and blue wavelength light. Which people kind of complained about. So basically a UV camera, with 2 minute exposure times, than 1 minute development, 1 to 4 minutes fixing and 2 minutes water wash. So a 1 frame per 6 to 10 minutes. Kind of slow. Although you could cut and use other 4x5 inch size film and work out the exposure and development times. Bizarrely interesting expensive camera. Its doing well, I may be interested in the future if they make a 8x10 inch version. That would be fun to play with. But the positive photo paper is 3x the cost at that size on B&H.

After a lot of work, my Nikon D700 Infrared is ready for action! After several Nikon D70 as well as a Nikon D80, I have now converted a full frame camera to full spectrum for the first time: My old Nikon D700. It already has a few years under its belt, the rubber pads it has in several places came loose from the substrate. But overall it is still in tip-top condition. Removing the IR cut filter is much more involved than the other models. Many more screws, many more cables. Much more concentration is required. According to instructions online, you have to desolder cables. But it can be done without. Just make sure that you can support the different layers of the camera somewhere without tearing out cables. Important: To get a Nikon D700 Infrared, it is not enough to remove the cyan hot mirror. You also have to remove the glass plate to which the internal cleaning mechanism is attached. Because this also blocks out infrared (and also UV) light. However, this is not a problem. Just cut the cable, remove the glass completely, and good. Who needs that anyway. As with other cameras, the Nikon D700 Infrared has problems with focusing, since glass layers have been removed (and thus distances are no longer calibrated) and IR has different focal planes anyway. Fortunately, it has Liveview. That simplifies the whole thing a lot. And so I was able to shoot wonderful 720nm photos with the 50mm AF lens – from aperture 8, even objects further away are always sharp. With the Aerochrome variant with green and orange filters, it’s a bit more difficult. Here, you need at least aperture 16 to get distant mountains or trees in focus. But thanks to the excellent ISO properties of the Nikon D700, this is no problem either. Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D, green and orange filters:

Based on a discussion here I was really intrigued by the graph shown for silver with the strong dip in reflectance around 320nm. I ordered a sheet of silver leaf from ebay (edible silver leaf and it was about 2GBP delivered) and decided to test it. Silver leaf was mounted on cardboard using double sided tape. Images done with my Monochrome converted Nikon d850m and Rayfact 105mm lens. f11 and ISO400 apart from the 254nm image (which was f11 and ISO6400). Light source was a Hamamatsu LC8 200W xenon lamp, but for the 254nm image I used a 4W UVP filtered lamp. I included a 99% Spectralon diffuse reflectance standard in each image and exposure time was adjusted to keep that as constant as possible for all the images. Images cropped and resized, but no further modifications. Visible - LC8 light and room light, Baader UV/IR cut filter 390nm to 340nm - Thorlabs 10nm bandpass filter, Hamamatsu LC8 Xenon lamp 330nm to 310nm - Edmund Optics 10nm bandpass filter, Hamamatsu LC8 Xenon lamp 300nm - Edmund optics 10nm bandpass filter and Hoya U-340 4mm as the EO filter leaks light above about 600nm, Hamamatsu LC8 Xenon lamp 254nm - Sirchie 253.7nm filter, UVP 4W 254nm lamp Here's the images. The reflectance of the silver leaf does indeed drop sharply at around 320nm. I recorded the RAW files too, and extracted the channel responses for the Spectralon and the silver leaf. Ratioing the silver leaf against the spectralon gave an interesting graph which closely matched the behaviour shared in the original thread (down to 300nm at least). Simple experiment, but took a while to setup. One of the images (the 360nm one) is a bit blurry, which I didn't noticed until I was processing the images. Also some of the dichroic filters show some evidence of light bouncing around between the layers (see the highlights on the 340nm one especially). Am I 100% confident with the 254nm image being 254nm and not leaks? Yes, pretty much as I've tested this filter before, but I suppose being ultra-picky that is the image and data I am least confident with as it doesn't match the published graph.

One of my first reflected UV shots with UV modified Pentax AF540 flash. Pentax K-1, Pentax bellows with 3 extension tubes, Nikon El-Nikkor 135 f5.6 enlarging lens. Bellows has a handy internal filter thread to allow filters to be mounted inside it. Used the Ioriginal supplied ZWB-1 2mm/ BG39 2.3mm filter stack. The flash was placed less than 2" from flower. Flash had 2 2mm filters, probably ZWB-1, borrowed from 2 NEMO torches. The extra 4mm of flash filtration is required to squelch leakage. Exposure f16 1/200 ISO2000. This flower is very small at about 10mm. Magnification is close to 2x life size. This image was slightly cropped for composition. Lens was used at f16 and would probably perform better reversed. Unfortunately, I don't have the necessary adapters to do that yet. I may wait to do this since the 135mm lens really is too long of a focal length to work comfortably on the bellows at these magnifications. Looking for an El-Nikkor 80mm for these applications. Any suggestions welcome. Thanks for looking, Doug A

World's Cheapest Infrared band 1,000nm to 14,000nm Camera Produces Images Pixel-by-Pixel for Just $11 https://www.hackster.io/news/the-world-s-cheapest-infrared-camera-produces-images-pixel-by-pixel-for-just-11-83b00a12c7ac?fbclid=IwAR3zi0x_EcrRQpIVmH-hWi9OkBayNeJTrdqifHauY5mHdky9jLl0uTAay8A

Made a UV WB target by wrapping many layers of plummer's tape around a flat piece of cardboard. The full spectrum Pentax K-1 is able to set a custom WB with the Ioriginal Kyoei 35 clone and ZWB1(2mm)/BG38(2.3mm) filter set. The photos come out mostly B&W. Sometimes there are some blue tints. Dandelions do come out yellow with black bull's-eye center. Is this most the colors the lens and filter combo will produce? Also managed to get the El-Nikkor original 135mm enlarging lens on the Pentax bellows. I like the filters fitting inside the bellows. Less flare and contrast loss. Any potted plants that would help test these setup's color response? It needs to be readily available in a Midwestern US plant store. Oops, just found a 2015 sticky that lists some plants. Not sure which plant would produce the most colors in reflected UV photos. Thanks, Doug A

Cubert announced recently a new hyperspectral camera: range 350 nm to 1000 nm, 410 x 410 pixels, 10 nm wavelength resolution. It uses light field technology, and can do hyperspectral video. I asked about the price, it costs about 45 000 €. In simple words for each of the 16000 pixels one can get a spectrum with data at 164 wavelengths, up to eight times per second... https://www.cubert-hyperspectral.com/products/ultris-x20 Amazing technology!

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

After the original full spectrum camera died, I tried the unmodified Olympus E30. It required 60 second exposures at ISO 1600 and F8 with the Kyoei 35 clone and ZWB1/BG39 filter stack in full sun. The wind caused some slight motion blur. Not acceptable results. Tried a different non converted camera. My original Pentax *ist DS 6mp cd sensor camera. It is much more sensitive to UV. ISO 800, F8, at 15 seconds. This was taken indoors with sunlight thru a large glass window. Same lens and filters. This was almost overexposed. The Pentax couldn't set in camera WB. Not sure if it is out of range or the illumination was too low. Set the camera as close as possible, then did the rest of the adjustment to the Raw file in Photoshop 11. Would like opinions on white balance and the image. Thanks, Doug A The replacement FS converted camera is still a few weeks away.

I've just had a very geeky few days evaluating a Phase One IQ4 Achromatic camera. Medium format BSI sensor (53.4 mm x 40.0 mm), 151Mp, black and white. Thanks to Teamwork Digital Ltd in the UK for making this possible and sending it to me along with an adapter to use my Hasselblad lenses and a really solid tripod. This was one that really interested me, as it should be good for UV as well as visible and IR, and I could try out my Zeiss UV Sonnar on it, as that was made for the Hasselblad 6x6 cameras. First impressions, it is very solidly built, and very well made. Here's a couple of pictures of the camera with some of the lenses I was trying out (El Nikkor 80mm f5.6, and the Zeiss UV Sonnar). Was able to take some images in UV, visible and IR and thought I'd share a few here. Landscape - Chobham Common in the UK in the IR and visible. Natural light in the evening. IR (Zeiss UV Sonnar, Hoya R72) Visible (Zeiss UV Sonnar, Schott S8612 1.5mm plus 420nm long pass) IR (Zeiss UV Sonnar, Hoya R72) Product shot in visible light using a big softbox. Single Bowens GM500 flash. Flower shots (from local flower shop - Tangerine and Green, Englefield Green, UK), in visible and UV. Single Bowens GM500 flash with quartz tube. Sunflower in UV (El Nikkor 80mm f5.6, Baader U) Not sure on this one - Dahlia perhaps - anyway, a white flower in UV and visible. Visible (Schott S8612 1.5mm plus 420nm long pass) UV (Baader U) These images have obviously all been reduced in resolution for sharing. As an example of the resolution of the original images, below is the image of the Sunflower in the UV along with a region marked in red. That little red square is 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels, and this is what it looks like in the original image. Working with the files is certainly challenging for the computer - a full size image in high quality jpeg is around 60Mb and the raw files are pushing 200Mb. You need a lot of storage with a camera like this. Not seen much UV imaging done with medium format, so thought it would be interesting to share. Unfortunately with only 3 days with it, I barely even learned how to use it, but it certainly impressed me in that short time. It has now sadly gone back to the dealer, and if I want to buy one I'll need to get buying those lottery tickets.....

A little bit of fun today. For a talk I'm writing I needed some photos of a subject in UVA and B captured in daylight, to be able to compare those with a different light source - mercury xenon lamp. My usual model (my wife) is currently away, so I called upon the services of one of her little stuffed toys to fill that role. Here's the toy in daylight, sat next to a Labsphere 20% diffuse reflectance standard. Taken just using the camera phone. UV imaging was done with a monochrome converted Nikon d850 and Rayfact 105mm UV lens (f8 and ISO800). Filter for UVA was 365nm Edmund Optics 10nm bandpass filter combined with a Hoya U-340 4mm. Filter for UVB was a 313nm Edmund Optics 10nm bandpass filter, again combined with the Hoya U-340 4mm. UVA image (365nm, 1/4s exposure, f8 ISO800) UVB image (313nm, 4s exposure, f8 ISO800) I checked for leaks in UVB image by using a Hoya R72 in combination with the filters and got a completely black image. I was actually really surprised by how different the UVA and B images looked - must be the dyes in the wool. Looking at the RAW files the UVB image is about a third of a stop darker than the UVA one, but it was close enough for what I need it for. UVB imaging in daylight is a huge challenge, even with a monochrome converted camera and 'non-glass' UV lens. The Edmund Optics filter alone, despite being OD4, was not up to the job of filtering unwanted wavelengths. Using it in combination with a Hoya U-340 4mm did the trick though.

I bought a cheap used Nikon D70 and removed the IR cut filter. This is relatively easy even for someone like me who's all thumbs. The problem is at most that you have so some trouble with the focus shift. But when I use f/11, everything comes out as sharp as it should be. Here are some impressions with two Aerochrome styles. 1. Lee 115 plus GRB3 and 2. with Orange-X1 combo and subsequent channel swap. I still think that the Nikon D70 is an excellent camera that is best suited for IR photography. Lee 115 plus GRB3: Orange-X1:

I have finally figured out how to make the Lodestar X2 Color sensor portable with the Raspberry pi. Downloading the latest image of Astroberry worked, as it has the drivers for the Starlight Xpress (SXCCD) cameras. So with this flashed to a micro SD chip, the pi becomes an Astrophotography toy. But included are working versions of some free software with the drivers needed to run the Lodestar color or monochrome cameras. So now I can use PHD2 to capture images using the Lodestar x2C camera connected to the Pi with a USB cable. I also needed a touch screen keyboard, to type in file names to save images. But PHD2, allows you to change the shutter speed from 0.01 to 30 seconds with simple pull down menu and you get a live view for focusing and stop button to freeze the frame. So now I have a new camera setup that looks like this: I have mounted the Lodestar under the main plate and it has a 12.5mm C-mount lens attached. The sensor size I think is the exact same as the pi HQ camera. The Lodestar is a CCD sensor with only 752 x 580 pixels with CMYG color layout. I have two 12.5mm lens, which worked well for the test today, but I still managed to frame differently, do to the heat and trying to stay in the shade. I added a 2mm UG1 filter and 2 mm S8612 filter to match the UV HQ pi camera to take a quick test image. This image is taken outside with sunlight as the light source at 1000F with 300% humidity. Only slightly joking about that last part, was 100F, and 60% humid today. So my dandelion died within a minute of picking out from the shade. So did the other flower. Base gain, 1/100 shutter speed with F4 on the 12.5 mm lens with 2mm UG1 and 2mm S8612 on Lodestar processed with Starlight live on Windows after collecting the raw .Fit file: Yes It looks like I missed focus on the LodestarC image. I definitely need more practice using it. Comparison is base ISO, 1/13 second shutter speed f1.3 on the 12.5 mm lens with 2mm ZWB2 and 2mm S8612 for the pi HQ camera (filters are in the camera so any lens can be added): I still need to workout how best to use the Lodestar, now that its portable its more fun to play with. Its low resolution and I don't think I captured it at its best here. Next should be a color chart in sunlight to really see the crazy color difference. I would like to see how the CMYG sensor shows false UV colors and compares to the typical RGGB sensor. But you can see how sensitive it is. These images differ by 6 stops!

The PDAF (phase detect auto-focus) banding issue in the Nikon Z6 or Z7 has been reported by Birna to be particularly bad in her Z6 UV/IR conversion when shooting reflected UV photos. I want to provide some background for this topic before Birna posts her examples. First, let's note that labeling this banding as "PDAF banding" may be a misnomer because it occurs also when using Z6//Z7 manual focus or when using Z6/Z7 CDAF (contrast detect auto-focus). On the Nikon Z6/Z7 you can set pin-point AF to force CDAF. But note that other mirrorless cameras which use only CDAF (example: Panasonic S1R) do not have any striping artifacts reported. The PDAF banding in the Z6/Z7 is *not* a function of the sensor. It is rather due to the camera's data processing which attempts to fix the well-known problem of PDAF striping due to reflections from the PDAF pixels' metal masks. (The older Sony As had this PDAF striping, for example. Along with Sony lossy compression and shutter shock, it is why I dislike my Sony A7R. But nevermind that because I learned to use it anyway.) The various well-known techies and bloggers such as Marianne Oelund, Jim Horshack, Jim Kasson and others (see links given below under the bar) who have been investigating the Z6/Z7 banding have observed that high dynamic range scenes and/or brightly illuminated, low ISO scenes can often induce the banding. And if the banding is there, then shadow lifts make it look worse. Well, my dears, those are precisely the kind of conditions we have in reflected UV photography. UV photos typically have UV-dark and UV-bright areas which require a camera capable of wide dynamic range. And we like to use as low ISO as possible in UV work to avoid the noise typically associated with UV shots. And shadow lifts or exposure pushes are common during processing because UV shots are rather dark and we tend to underexpose them. Please note that so far these folks have not been able to pin down precisely what causes the PDAF striping algorithm to engage. And there is no fix yet for Z6/Z7 PDAF banding. I'm not sure there will be anything soon because the commenters seem to think that the typical Z6/Z7 shooter is not going to encounter the PDAF banding very often. The fix is to simply use another camera for those situations where it might occur. Not much of a fix to my way of thinking. Especially when we cannot be sure precisely what triggers the data processing algorithm. To mitigate Z6/Z7 banding: Use high ISOs because noise masks banding. Use the 12-bit setting because noise masks banding. Try the repair in the Raw Therapee converter. It's not perfect, but helps. Frankly, I think that using noise to mask banding is not something I want to do. We have enough noise already in UV photos. I had really, really liked the Z6 conversion which I pre-tested for Birna because I could easily focus at f/4 through the EVF or LCD under the BaaderU. And the Z6 has a nice short FFD. And Focus Peaking worked a treat in UV. But my use of high ISO for my test photos obscured just how bad the PDAF banding is. We may have to unconvert Birna's camera. Geez!! My earlier test link: http://www.ultraviol...s-finally-here/ Here are some references on other forums for the topic of Z6/Z7 PDAF Banding. A lengthy discussion was made on Dpreview in the Z forum: https://www.dpreview...s/post/61781820 https://www.dpreview...s/post/61811583 Then Jim Kasson made several blog posts about the Z PDAF Banding: https://blog.kasson....f-banding-faqs/ https://blog.kasson....7-pdaf-banding/ https://blog.kasson....7-pdaf-banding/ https://blog.kasson....ding-constancy/

Kolari Vision are offering a service for Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras to replace the internal camera glass with thinner glass. https://kolarivision.com/product/sony-a7-series-thin-filter-legacy-lens-upgrade/?fbclid=IwAR2APzko5QhLoiaNCz4MR08UTpnBHq8OQce8jMvdbSjq5XjLvwT9V0wFNws

It looks like the startup company Gigajot, a spin out from Eric Fossum labs. Whom is the inventor of the CMOS sensor, will have the newest QIS sensor technology available to purchase soon. https://www.gigajot.tech/qis-cdk The quantum efficiency in UV isn't stellar. But you will be able to count those photons. UVC looks more promising.

A couple shots with the DB850/Y#12 stack, on my a7R w/ Nikkor 50mm/f1.8 Ai lens. The vignetting is intentional in the first; The second used to be a major railway route, now just a muddy field.

I just received 2 of theses camera I am about to test awaiting adopters to mount a a F mount lens and able to mount to telescope too. I have costal 105mm uv lenses a uka UV 25mm cmount lens and a keyoei and clones and also microscope objectives and so on.... they are going to be fun to play with full monochrome full frame cameras..... Apogee Alta U9000X link to camera specs: http://www.telescope.../pdf/U9000X.pdf c&p The Alta U9000X uses a very large format 9-megapixel full frame sensor with anti-blooming gates, ideal for applications requiring large field of view, such as astrophotography, sky surveys, and radiology. The X version has a 16-bit digitization rate of 1.8 megapixels/second, compared to the 1 MHz for the U9000. • 3056 x 3056 array, 12 x12 micron pixels • 5 MHz 12-bit and 1.8 MHz 16-bit digitization • 32Mbyte camera memory • USB 2.0 interface: no plug in cards or external controllers • Programmable, intelligent cooling to 40°C below ambient • Binning up to 8 Horizontal x 3056 Vertical • Subarray readout and fast sequencing modes • Precision time delayed integration (TDI) and kinetics mode readout • Programmable fan speed for low / zero vibration • Two serial port outputs for control of peripheral devices • General purpose programmable I/O port • External triggering and strobe controls • ActiveX drivers included with every system • Field upgradeable firmware • Fused silica windows • Runs from single 12V supply with input voltage monitor • Compact enclosure • Programmable status indicators CCDSPECIFICATIONS • Astronomy • Radiology • Optical testing • Non-destructive testing HighPerformanceCooledCCDCameraSystem ALTA U9000Xblob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/be38c4f3-bb0f-4723-ab1a-9b4477bf188d Imaging Area of CCDblob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/55730472-6855-43c1-b57d-0ea464509927 blob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/4677f478-a692-4a96-8e6f-41aba68d54f1 blob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/30a1ea90-ade4-4225-a1b8-48c4c4ebff81 blob:https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/f6ac8431-f1f9-4c1c-9c69-f24ea3ad8dea CCD Array Size (pixels) Pixel Size Imaging Area Imaging Diagonal Video Imager Size Linear Full Well (typical) Dynamic Range QE at 400 nm Peak QE (550 nm) Anti-blooming Kodak KAF-09000 3056 x 3056 12 x 12 microns 36.7 x 36.7 mm (1345 mm2) 51.9 mm 3.24” 110K electrons 84 dB 37% 64% For complete CCD specifications, including cosmetic grading, see data sheet from manufacturer. PC Interface Max. Cable Length Digital Resolution System Noise (typical) Pixel Binning Exposure Time Image Sequencing Frame Sizes Cooling (typical) Dark Current (typical) Temperature Stability Camera Head Size Mounting Back Focal Distance Operating Environment Cable Length Power Shutter Remote Triggering USB 2.0 5 meters between hubs; 5 hubs maximum (max. total of 30m) 16 bits at 1.8 MHz and 12 bits at 5 MHz 10 e- RMS at 1.8 MHz and 2 counts at 5 MHz 1x1 to 8x3058 on-chip 30 milliseconds to 183 minutes (2.56 microsecond increments) 1 to 65535 image sequences under software control Full frame, subframe, focus mode Thermoelectric cooler with forced air. Maximum cooling 40°C below ambient temperature 0.3 e-/pixel/sec (-20°C) ± 0.1°C D7. Aluminum, hard blue anodized. 7” x 7” x 2.55” (17.8 x 17.8 x 6.48 cm) Weight: 4.2 lb. (1.9 kg) 5,125” bolt circle. Optional Nikon F-mount or Canon FD mount. 1.008” (25.60 mm) [optical] -22° to 27°C. Relative humidity: 10 to 90% non-condensing. Standard: 15 ft (4.5m) 40W maximum power with shutter open and cooling maximum. AC/DC “brick” supply with int’l AC input plug (100-240V, 50-60 Hz). Alternate 12V input from user’s source. Melles Griot 63mm. LVTTL input allows exposure to start within 25 microseconds of rising edge of trigger

In a recent thread about possible harm to insects when flashing them (https://www.ultravio...cts-with-flash/), naturally the question of using high ISO popped up. ISO-performance has been mentioned all across the board in different topics, the merits of different companies and models discussed, etc. (and is a constant source of heated discussion all over the internet), but Canon-users on this site are few and far between. So I wanted to test my UV-workhorse Canon and see how it performs at high ISO: The camera: Canon EOS 6D, introduced in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia...ki/Canon_EOS_6D), a full-frame camera with 20.2 MP, native ISO range from 100 to 25600, with the option of going to 50 at the lower end, and 51200 and 102400 at the upper end, respectively. Now, 8 years later, I would expect new models to show a significant improvement at higher ISO, as is the case with all manufacturers and lines. Its successor, the 6D II (2017) already sports a native ISO range from 100 to 40000 (and the latest mirror-lens bodies 100 to 102400, so things are developing). I bought it actually for the very reason that being the discontinued model it was cheaper to be had second-hand It was converted by maxmax to black & white, i.e. getting rid of the Bayer-filter, and at the same time removing the usual blocking filter, replacing it with their proprietary X-Nite 330C-filter. This filter does have a small IR-leak of 1% at 720nm (https://maxmax.com/s...r-x-2-2mm-thick ). Converting the camera to b/w boosted its UV-response by an unknown factor (I've read claims of fivefold somewhere), and as a matter of fact, in most cases the difference of camera and camera+S8612-filter is all but non-existent. So, before I did this test, I've always tried to keep ISO below 1600. If I shoot with tripod, then ISO can be as low as 100 (for perfect quality), but if I don't want to smear out movement or want to take a handheld shot, then up goes the shutter speed, and up goes ISO as well. The prospect of shooting handheld was my main motivation for getting this modification; especially when I'm on city-trips and with some friends I want to be able to take snap-shots. So, without further ado, if you've braved this somewhat lengthy introduction, here are the results. I've shot a stamp of mine, indoors, with camera on the tripod, distance sensor to stamp about 55cm (I think I missed perfect focus ever so slightly). The lens was the EL-Nikkor 105 mm f/5.6, set to f/8, used on a helicoid, of course. A full-spectrum Yongnuo VN560III was triggered by radio from the camera. I shot a series from 100 to 25600, trying first to adjust the level of flash so that the initial histrogram would be about the same, and for 25600 I shot some more tests where I allowed some under-exposure, up to about 3 stops. I didn't think it necessary to go lower. For 51200 and 102400 I just tried to keep the histogram around the centre. I'm not showing all of them, this would be too boring even for myself This is a 1000x1000 px crop from the 5472x3648 pixel frame. In post (Lightroom) I mainly adjusted brightness, structure and clarity. Noise reduction was only performed from 25600 upwards. The stamp has a size of about 24x29 mm (on top you can see the technical paper I placed it on, the thick lines are spaced 0.5 cm apart). ISO 100: ISO 1600: ISO 12800: ISO 25600 (aiming for good exposure): ISO 25600 (worst exposure 2.5-3 steps): ISO 51200: ISO 102400: Summary: I was actually surprised that the loss of quality from 1600 to 12800 is this small. I wouldn't hesitate to go to 3200 or 6400 in the field, even to 12800 if it meant getting the shot. The first 25600 is also better than I had expected it, so if I had to crank up the shutter speed to capture an insect without flash (and without too much details), I might use it. However, if with 25600 the shot is still underexposed, the story changes quite rapidly, as most of the fine detail is lost. It might still be acceptable as documentation, like here if I only wanted to prove the stamp to be the famous Millstatt-stamp, worth millions of Euro, it would do the job (which, sadly is not true, the stamp with a nominal value of 1 Österreichische Schilling, can be bought for 0.45 €). The same is true for 51200 and 102400, documentation can be done, but that's about it, where the latter is almost completely unusable, as was to be expected. Or, if it is already pretty dark and one goes for a spooky photo of an old castle, it might work as well Caveats, if you want to apply this to other Canons or other subjects: This camera has got its Bayer filter removed, so on top of increased sensitivity in UV and spatial resolution, any colour effects at higher ISO will simply not be there. I'm sure most of you will have had some coloured high ISO-shot converted to black/white so that it doesn't look quite as awful I am everything but an expert in handling photos with a large amount of noise. Using Lightroom, Photoshop, Noise-Ninja, etc. an expert will probably be able to improve the quality considerably. This means, I'm showing about the worst-case. The subject is flat, the conditions were perfectly controlled. Of course, this is way to test the performance of the sensor. Out in the field everything changes. There will be other caveats which I'm not thinking about right now, as usual

A week ago, Stefano PMed me, with the title, "MWIR camera at 'affordable' price?" I admit, I was skeptical, but the skepticism turned to amazement as I read the eBay listing. For sale was an Agema 470 Pro, at "Buy It Now" of $650, or best offer. The camera was of the HgCdTe (or MCT) type, which means it has a single pixel and a high speed rotating mirror that directs light onto the sensor, which is cooled via Peltier effect to -80C or so. Effective resolution was 100x140 pixels. The sensitivity is 2-5 microns, going from the long end of SWIR into the mid-MWIR. From 5-8 microns, air is absorbing, so no cameras are available in that range currently (nor likely ever to be). Beyond 8 microns is the usual LWIR window where my other thermal cameras work. The seller had posted pictures of the camera operating, and a power supply was easily available, so I thought: why not? So I got the camera. The camera is extremely large and heavy. It is about 50cm (22 inches) long, and it weights 7kg (15.4lb). It has a monochrome viewfinder and a floppy drive (3.5") for storage. I do not have any floppy disks alas. It took a few days to acquire a power supply and a light source. I bought a "Deep Heat Projector" from Arcadia Reptile. Arcadia had this to say when I asked about the spectrum last year in reference to my TriWave: I didn't buy it last year (didn't get around to it) but with the MWIR camera it was too handy to resist: better SWIR light and one that worked for the short end of the MWIR. So I got that along with a socket for it. Today all the stuff arrived and I put it together. The camera makes a revving up noise like a jet engine: a slowly building whirrrrrrRRRRRR!R!R!R!R!!!!!! as that mirror goes faster and faster. The electronics turns on and a boot-up screen appears, showing the software dates to May 1, 1989. The camera originally came with a variety of lenses, so the lens on the front is detachable. The one it came with was a 20 deg FOV lens — in IR, camera lenses are described by field of view (FOV) rather than focal length. With the lens removed, there is another (concave) lens behind it, and according to the ancient manual, which is available still from FLIR's website since FLIR bought Agema eons ago, you can use it in macro mode if you leave the outer lens off. Showing how highlights on my hand vanish when the reptile light is removed from my hand: https://youtube.com/Kz6nH_u0Teo Showing teeth changing temperature as I breathe: https://youtube.com/0exOl11PJSk

Bernard's A7r thread went south basically turning into this discussion. But for the 100 of new UV photography members whom joined over the last 2 years but never post I thought I would post my thoughts and see if others have better ideas. Which is most likely possible. Best off the self cheap UV reflectance monochrome camera: 1. I would give the award to the Sigma SDQ. Has live view. Pop off the dust blocker and the blue channel sees all of but only UVA in high resolution as this layer has the most pixels. 2. Would be a Leica monochrome camera. Expensive, but Andrea has posted some nice images. Problem for both is a good lens for these mounts. Best off the shelf color reflectance camera: 1. Would be an Olympus camera as seems to have weakest UV blocking filter. The Em5mk2 is very good. Conversion to full spectrum only gives you 1 extra stop of UVA light with a Baader venus u filter in the sun. Do we know any other modern camera with live view that has a weak UV blocking filter and doesn't need conversion? Best UV induced visible fluorescence camera: Seems to be the Nikon DSLR have the most UV blocking and would help to isolated just the fluorescence as seen here: https://kolarivision...veness-article/ Best camera for UV induced infrared fluorescence: Again a Sigma SDQ would win here with the dust filter popped out. The Sigma Foveon sensors seem to be extremely sensitive to detecting IR. But this will be monochromatic in mostly the red channel.