ICF data available

[lost cat]

It should be mentioned that the modification by removing the ICF indeed improves UV sensitivity of the camera, but at the same time, allows far higher sensitivity to IR. Thus the whole picture as it were has to be taken into account. Thus if a modified camera increases response in UV by 1-2 EV, and in IR by 5-6 EV, the problem is just shifted from the camera per se to the IR-blocking property of the filter(s) used.

 

Exactly.

[lost cat]

Looking at the charts shows another interesting candidate for UV is the Sony A300. It shares its 10.4MP Sony ICX-493AQA sensor with the D40X but possesses an UV transmissible ICF yielding 60% @350 nm. This body does have an older anti shake feature which may be useful for some as well as liveview (of sorts, not sure if its also UV capable), foldout 2.7" monitor, and a slightly better than an iST DL 5 point autofocus.

 

http://www.bythom.com/olddslr.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Alpha_200

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Alpha_300

 

No this will not hold a candle to a *modern* body converted to full spectrum but for those not ready for that level of commitment it may offer a way to try out UV without tearing the camera apart. The prices aren't as cheap as some of the others but prices do tend to drop over time.

[Alex H]

The best for UV Sony DSLR is A100.

Note than A300 liveview uses secondary sensor, and that it will only work in M mode with non-chipped lenses, as opposed to A, S and P mode.

[Shane]

Most spectra posted so far are redundant to those at Kolari but its always to have a second opinion when its available:

 

Ilija (Kolarivision) and I corresponded several years ago when he inquired about my ICF spectra. He too realized the value of ICF spectra. I was glad to see someone else pursue this endeavor since he obviously had easy access to ICF removed from conversions whereas I had to rely on donated ICF. I did receive several ICF from members of the UVIR group at the old nikongear forum, most of who are now members of this forum. However, since first publishing my ICF spectra back in 2009 I struggled to get samples so I was happy to pass the torch to Ilija.

 

After recently resolving the situation with one of my spectrometers that died (IR end) I have just collected spectra for the D7000 (care of Andrea) and the D800 (my own after IR conversion) and will publish those soon on my site.

[lost cat]

The best for UV Sony DSLR is A100.

Note than A300 liveview uses secondary sensor, and that it will only work in M mode with non-chipped lenses, as opposed to A, S and P mode.

 

Is there a graph of the A100 ICF available?

[Alex H]

No, but I used it and compared it with a number of other Sony cameras.

[lost cat]

No, but I used it and compared it with a number of other Sony cameras.

How would you say it compares to the D40/70/70s?

[Alex H]

Comparing to D70 is about 2 EV less sensitive.

[lost cat]

Comparing to D70 is about 2 EV less sensitive.

 

Interesting.

 

Assuming the unmodified A100 demonstrates better UV performance than the unmodified A300 and the A300 ICF has comperable UV performance to the D70 as shown in the kolari graphs the lowered sensitivity would presumably be from the sensor.

 

Since the D40x uses the same sensor as these Sony cameras this lowered sensitivity should be reflected in the UV performance difference between modified D70 and D40x bodies.

 

Along those lines I'm thinking a good metric for the camera sticky would be to have a table similar to the lens table with performance set against a benckmark, perhaps the unmodified D70 since many members seem to already have one in their collection. These bodies also seem to be readily available on the used market for reasonable prices.

[Shane]

Since the D40x uses the same sensor as these Sony cameras

 

This assumes that the Nikon uses the same Bayer Filter Array (dye transmission properties) as a Sony sensor and doesn't spec their own proprietary Bayer Array.

 

The basic sensor may be the same but not necessarily the Bayer Filter dye composition.

 

Having worked for a semiconductor facility where some production was out sourced to AT&T using our specifications, it would not be out of the question.

 

Does anyone have substantiating evidence that the Bayer dyes are the same?

[Alex H]

Assuming the unmodified A100 demonstrates better UV performance than the unmodified A300 and the A300 ICF has comperable UV performance to the D70 as shown in the kolari graphs the lowered sensitivity would presumably be from the sensor.

 

I did not say that. I said that A100 is best for UV in general, and there are many factors for this statement, not just sensor performance.

I tested side-by side A100, A700 and A290 at one time, and they al performed more of less the same under that particular test conditions.

A100 is cheaper than A700 and 500-series, allows to use non-native lenses in A-mode (200- and 300-series do not allow it), has bigger viewfinder than 300-series), etc.

[Alex H]

Does anyone have substantiating evidence that the Bayer dyes are the same?

 

More to the contrary. Nikon and Sony show differences in color reproduction, strong enough for some people to prefer either "Nikon-colors" or "Sony-colors".

DXO ranking for Nikon and Sony cameras using same serial number sensor also differs, suggesting that there are differences, either in CFA or in signal processing pipeline, or both...

[lost cat]

I did not say that. I said that A100 is best for UV in general, and there are many factors for this statement, not just sensor performance.

I tested side-by side A100, A700 and A290 at one time, and they al performed more of less the same under that particular test conditions.

A100 is cheaper than A700 and 500-series, allows to use non-native lenses in A-mode (200- and 300-series do not allow it), has bigger viewfinder than 300-series), etc.

 

I apologize, I misunderstood your statement to indicate UV sensitivity only since that was the metric in question. Of course there are many other factors to consider including cost, ergonomics, flexibility, and other features.

 

More to the contrary. Nikon and Sony show differences in color reproduction, strong enough for some people to prefer either "Nikon-colors" or "Sony-colors".

DXO ranking for Nikon and Sony cameras using same serial number sensor also differs, suggesting that there are differences, either in CFA or in signal processing pipeline, or both...

 

Well that adds another dimension of fun.

 

I had read a thread on another forum discussing the possibility of bleaching out the Bayer dyes with a strong UV light or laser. Just asking out of academic interest, can this be done without damaging the underlying sensor?

[Shane]

More to the contrary. Nikon and Sony show differences in color reproduction, strong enough for some people to prefer either "Nikon-colors" or "Sony-colors".

DXO ranking for Nikon and Sony cameras using same serial number sensor also differs, suggesting that there are differences, either in CFA or in signal processing pipeline, or both...

 

thanks Alex, that's what I suspected.

[Andrea B.]

I don't know if anyone knows the answer to that.

Currently the method for removing the Bayer filter is to grind it off. And, currently Dan Llewellyn at MaxMax is the only one who seems to have to perfected a good grinding technique. I would ask him about the bleaching question. I seem to remember that he was experimenting with that at one point.

Contact Information Voice (001) 201-882-0344 Fax (001) 201-882-0326 Skype infraviolet1 Address 220 Broad Street, Carlstadt, NJ 07072, USA Email sales@maxmax.com

[Shane]

I had read a thread on another forum discussing the possibility of bleaching out the Bayer dyes with a strong UV light or laser. Just asking out of academic interest, can this be done without damaging the underlying sensor?

 

Depending on the wavelength, duration and intensity - sensor damage is very possible due to the formation of ionization defects in the SiO2 and, UV-induced effects in the gate oxide and interface.

[lost cat]

Depending on the wavelength, duration and intensity - sensor damage is very possible due to the formation of ionization defects in the SiO2 and, UV-induced effects in the gate oxide and interface.

 

Well I suppose it *might* be possible to minimize the damage on the sensor by tightly focusing a UV laser to a small volume with a microscope aperture such that by the time it hits the sensor its defocused enough to not induce those effects. Still would be a real PITA though.

 

It would be a lot easier to just buy a bare sensor.

[lost cat]

I don't know if anyone knows the answer to that.

Currently the method for removing the Bayer filter is to grind it off. And, currently Dan Llewellyn at MaxMax is the only one who seems to have to perfected a good grinding technique. I would ask him about the bleaching question. I seem to remember that he was experimenting with that at one point.

Contact Information Voice (001) 201-882-0344 Fax (001) 201-882-0326 Skype infraviolet1 Address 220 Broad Street, Carlstadt, NJ 07072, USA Email sales@maxmax.com

 

Thank you Andrea.

[Alex H]

I don't know if anyone knows the answer to that.

Currently the method for removing the Bayer filter is to grind it off. And, currently Dan Llewellyn at MaxMax is the only one who seems to have to perfected a good grinding technique. I would ask him about the bleaching question. I seem to remember that he was experimenting with that at one point.

Contact Information Voice (001) 201-882-0344 Fax (001) 201-882-0326 Skype infraviolet1 Address 220 Broad Street, Carlstadt, NJ 07072, USA Email sales@maxmax.com

 

There are few other companies doing monochrom conversions. As well as a bunch of amateurs. There are currently only two effective ways to remove CFA - mechanical and chemical. And although there are many examples of mechanical debayering on the internet, those who found good chemical ways to do so keep their methods secret for obvious reasons.

[Alex H]

But I thought the whole point of this thread was to find the camera that works best for UV without any modifications to make things as simple and cheap as possible. Monochrome conversion in my limited experience is the most complex, risky and expensive of what we do here in UVP. Besides buying dedicated UV optics...

[igoriginal]

But I thought the whole point of this thread was to find the camera that works best for UV without any modifications to make things as simple and cheap as possible.

 

Haha. I was starting to think the same thing. :) (But I've just been reading along, quietly.)

 

Monochrome conversion in my limited experience is the most complex, risky and expensive of what we do here in UVP. Besides buying dedicated UV optics...

 

Even more expensive than sending in a camera for a full-spectrum conversion. In fact, I think that a full-spectrum-conversion service is among the least expensive procedures, compared to the whole of a UV-photographer's expenses. There are a handful of independent professionals out there, who offer such services for around $150. Some even approaching $100, if you're a repeat customer (send in more than one camera).

 

Thus, I still do not see the logical point of crippling one's workflow by fiddling around with an unconverted camera for UV-photography (in the long term, that is.) Because time is money, too, and many of the first-generation DSLR's lack a lot of key features which would only slow down a person's UV-photo workflow / learning curve. For instance, many of those first-generation (early 2000's) DSLR's cannot even effectively set CWB (custom-white-balance) in-camera, with a UV-pass/IR-block filter on the lens. They will get an "error" message. Some of those earlier DSLR's do not even have a dedicated CWB-setting function, altogether.

 

Thus, all in all, I feel that given that much of the cost of the newer tech has come down, now that it has been passed along to many of the entry-level DSLR's of today (especially the mirrorless models), it makes little sense (in my opinion) to "tie one's hands behind their back" ... when they can just budget for an entry-level mirrorless crop-sensor camera, obtain all of the latest functions, and thus enable their workflow, rather than cripple it needlessly. I do not see the big deal in forking out $200 for a used entry-level mirrorless camera for conversion, and then spending just another $100 to $150 for a conversion. "Get it done, and get it over with", is my logic. Because again, time is money too.

 

Whereas, tinkering with unconverted first-general DSLR's, with regards to experimenting with their ICF (and how it compares to full-spectrum models), is more of an "enthusiast" pursuit, on the side. Hence, such a choice should no longer be a UV-shooter's "go-to" camera for intensive / serious UV work. Not when the most useful (and enabling) of tech is no longer prohibitively expensive.

 

My opinion, of course.

[igoriginal]

I wanted to clarify: I am not saying that buying a second-hand first-generation unconverted DSLR is useless. Of course, it's a fascinating thing to do, to analyze and compare the UV-response of non-converted cameras.

 

However, for any newcomer who aims to train in all matters of digital UV photography ... including making full use of available functions and tools, in-camera, which aid in the process (thus, reducing needless and/or tedious post-photo editing work) ... it makes more sense to start with a current system, get it full-spectrum-modified, and learn the ins and outs of the workflow, right off the bat.

 

So, like I said ... grabbing a first-generation unconverted DSLR for experimentation / analysis of ICF response is more along the lines of post-training "enthusiant" (or "tinkerer") work, and should not be seen as a viable training platform for a UV newcomer. Definitely not for more demanding and discerning work. Not in this day and age, anyway, given the fact that digital UV photography has evolved much, in the past 15 years.

 

Hence, I just wanted to clarify what I meant (and not that I was saying that tinkering with such crippled first-generation DSLR's has no use at all. Sure, it has some use. It definitely beckons at one's curiosity / fascination.) Though, ultimately, it builds needless walls within one's workflow, when these walls no longer have to exist in the current era of tech.

 

Therefore, contrary to assumption, it actually saves MORE money and MORE time (in the long run), to just pay a little extra for current tech, get the tech full-spectrum-modified, and initiate one's UV-photography training with all of the recently available tools, right from the very beginning ... rather than dragging things out.

[lost cat]

But I thought the whole point of this thread was to find the camera that works best for UV without any modifications to make things as simple and cheap as possible. Monochrome conversion in my limited experience is the most complex, risky and expensive of what we do here in UVP. Besides buying dedicated UV optics...

 

Yes it is.

 

I wanted to clarify: I am not saying that buying a second-hand first-generation unconverted DSLR is useless. Of course, it's a fascinating thing to do, to analyze and compare the UV-response of non-converted cameras.

 

However, for any newcomer who aims to train in all matters of digital UV photography ... including making full use of available functions and tools, in-camera, which aid in the process (thus, reducing needless and/or tedious post-photo editing work) ... it makes more sense to start with a current system, get it full-spectrum-modified, and learn the ins and outs of the workflow, right off the bat.

 

So, like I said ... grabbing a first-generation unconverted DSLR for experimentation / analysis of ICF response is more along the lines of post-training "enthusiant" (or "tinkerer") work, and should not be seen as a viable training platform for a UV newcomer. Definitely not for more demanding and discerning work. Not in this day and age, anyway, given the fact that digital UV photography has evolved much, in the past 15 years.

 

Hence, I just wanted to clarify what I meant (and not that I was saying that tinkering with such crippled first-generation DSLR's has no use at all. Sure, it has some use. It definitely beckons at one's curiosity / fascination.) Though, ultimately, it builds needless walls within one's workflow, when these walls no longer have to exist in the current era of tech.

 

Therefore, contrary to assumption, it actually saves MORE money and MORE time (in the long run), to just pay a little extra for current tech, get the tech full-spectrum-modified, and initiate one's UV-photography training with all of the recently available tools, right from the very beginning ... rather than dragging things out.

 

That really depends on the customer. For a professional photographer who is looking at making an income with UV images sure, spending a few hundred on a full spectrum rig could be worth the investment. However there are also the people who just want an all in one body that will be used mainly for family photos and maybe sometimes a UV picture of something interesting. That customer will not buy a $400 Baader or a $300 body + $130 full spectrum conversion (losing the dust shaker in the process and necessitating the use of a UV and IR filter from that day forward for VIS only images) and certainly not spend $5000+ on a UV Nikkor. That is the person who will be interested in a setup that will be good enough to check the sunblock is applied properly and to keep an eye on the progression of sun damage to aging skin and maybe the occasional nature picture while remaining OEM spec for traditional use. An added advantage is far less depreciation on the used market.

 

Someday that all in one, Jack-of-all-trades market will be satisfied with a UV camera equipped cellphone but for now it's an easily obtained $100 unmodified Nikon D40/70 with a $30 accidental UV lens and a $120 Hoya 340/s8612 stack. Something just good enough to do the job in the UV while being useable for non UV work and cheap to boot. And that can be easily resold on EBay when the time comes.

 

Case in point, Toyota sells far more Corollas than Lexus sells LS 460s. The Lexus might be a far better car but the Toyota will get you from point A to B just fine for far less.

[Alex H]

I am afraid you will not find anything better than D70 for what you want.

[lost cat]

I am afraid you will not find anything better than D70 for what you want.

 

Quite possible. My only real gripe about the Nikon platform is the FFD. It'd be nice to be able to get infinity focus without extra glass on the adapter.

 

The iST arrived yesterday so once I get some batteries it likes I'll see how its stacks up against the D40.