Primaluce Nikon Z5 Full-spectrum camera

[dabateman]

One crazy test I would like to see is if you get a Megadap MTZ11 autofocus adapter and a F-mount to M-mount adapter. Can you autofocus your Nikon 105mm UV lens in UV.

 

This new adapter makes all my smallish manual lenses AF now.

[nfoto]

Why one would bother making a UV-Nikkor a [sluggish] AF lens is beyond my limited imagination. Besides, as my UV-Nikkor all are CPU-enabled, I'll lose the EXIF information as well if the adapter isn't the FTZ.

 

I will commence a full in-depth review of the PrimaLuce Z5, by the way. Either on UVP or our sister site, Nikongear.net/nikongear.com.

[dabateman]

I just seem to be in an autofocus fixation now. Was just curious if you had that adapter yet and if the AF system still works in UV.

In watching YouTube videos about the AF adapter, its noticeable faster on the Z6mk2 than Z6mk1. But people now seem to be praising the Z6mk2 as best for autofocus. At least for the Z-mount cameras.

 

Just random thoughts. I was surprised you had the m43rds to Z-mount adapter, that came up in a thread. Thought you might have this one as well.

 

Advantage of this adapter is it turns all my old manual only lenses into autofocus capable. My 50mm f1.2 was indicated as working well. I feel I might need that extra help moving forward.

 

[nfoto]

AF is OK for sports or snapshots no doubt. However, AF and 'macro' photography are two worlds best kept apart. Holds equally well in UV as in visible ligt photography.

 

I do have plenty of more or less obscure adapters for my CX, m43, NEX and Z cameras. For example, Petri-mount adapters, C, M, M42, T2, OM, Leica R, rear-mount filter adapters for F/Z, bespoke focuing adapters for Rodenstock X-ray lenses, focusing adapters for fix-focus fisheye lenses, and so on. I probably forgot entries which should be on the list.

[Stefano]

AF on macro is not useful since the camera focuses where she wants? Maybe on a flower you want to focus on specific parts, such as anthers or the recently known to me pollinia, and you have more control with a manual focusing. That's how I explain it to myself. Is this the reason?

[nfoto]

Yes. 'Artificial intelligence' can be very hard to convince that the end user is correct, not the AF system by default.

[nfoto]

In preparation for an in-depth camera review, there is a joyful playtime ... so also with the PrimaLuce Z5 while I'm actively familiarising myself with this new tool.

 

I could use my vintage fix-focus fisheyes on a DIY focusing adapter I cobbled together from parts off the odds-and-ends bins. Factor in a nice 11th century church ruin and I'm all set for a selfie run ....

 

 

10mm f/5.6 OP-Fisheye-Nikkor, false-colour EIR emulation, PrimaLuce Z5, tongue-in-cheek model.

 

My hair came out reasonably accurate (minus the greenish hues), whilst my parkas is medium lavender and my dress is navy blue. Grass on ground of course is autumn half-dead pale green or yellow.

 

Maybe not the best setup for catwalk photography, but then I'm not into the fashion stuff anyway. Note to self: IR does make fabric more transparent.

[dabateman]

I look forward to the review. I see myself one day buying into the Z-mount or L-

mount. Just not now. Need to wait for cheaper used gear.

 

Yes I am weird. I lile AF on macro lenses. You can get it to work and can work fast. I also use focus trapping at the minimum focus distance. Just got the 60mm AFD macro for that. Perfect on my DF.

I just popped over to the sister side. I didn't know the Df was officially discontinued. Its my only Nikon now. Excellent in its quirks.

[nfoto]

The PrimaLuce Z5 does AF with the native Z lenses, and the AF apparently is fast and accurate. With the FTZ adapter, the F-mount AFS Nikkors work as well, but perhaps not equally fast as they do on the native F cameras.

 

 

This is a snapshot with the Z 24 mm f/1.8 S-Line Nikkor f/1.8 lens. This particular lens did behave better than most of the native Z lenses in terms of IR hot spotting, so actually could be pretty useful for IR or false-colour emulated IR. A low level of colour aberrations did help as well towards these ends.

[nfoto]

I' still looking for some of the fisheye lenses which should be floating around if only I could locate them ... This is the AFS 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye Nikkor which of course requires the FTZ or equivalent adapter to work on the Z range. It uses rear gel filters and in this case I used a Hoya R72 sheet.

 

 

The image was very sharp so I could massage the file to get the geometric distortion better under control. One loses a lot of peripheral sharpness of course, but done judiciously the "de-fishing" produces acceptable results.

[dabateman]

Birna those are looking good. Your last post's image might just say it all. Dark patches are much better than anything you posted previously with the Z6.

 

 

[dabateman]

Birna,

First request, see if your Z-mount 35mm has this IR leak, from the lens, with the Z5 converted.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/709632-what-is-going-on-with-my-sensor/page-3

[nfoto]

Nothing to be seen up to 3 minutes exposure.

[nfoto]

However, the very same test on my modified Z6 does produce strong internal flare, even with the lens cap in place and camera + lens covered by a thick blanket.

 

This observation, and the UV striping grievances I experienced with the Z6, finally made me to consider resetting the Z6 to stock conditions and selling it off. This goes against all my principles but frankly, the modified Z6 simply cannot be relied upon. Any company now offering Z6 modifications is potentially ripping off their customers. (this applies to the original Z6, I have no data on the Z6 Mk.II on the internal leak issue).

 

I might ask my friendly Nikon tech to keep the coverglass from my modified Z6 to put on the Z5, as I strongly suspect it will allow deeper UV.

[Stefano]

So the Z6 is just not suitable for a full-spectrum conversion? I guess not all cameras are, but the majority should do fine.

 

About the coverglass, if you want to shoot in deep UVA/UVB you should replace it. You said you are not interested in deep UV photography as some members are, but you are interested only in botanical work, and of course you don't really need to reach deep for that. But the Primaluce filter is surely not the best, it starts cutting already in the upper UV range, just below 400 nm. So putting something that transmits at least 80% above 350 nm would improve things noticeably. Since you are reviewing the camera as it came, of course I think you should try with the "stock" filter first and then do a comparison if you decide to change it.

 

Just noticed that their filter transmits ~70% at 350 nm, so you want something even better than 80% at 350 nm+ to see a real improvement.

[nfoto]

I just decided to reset my modified Z6 to stock condition and sell it off. I have had enough.

 

There will be a superfluous cover glass from it that might later go on the PrimaLuce Z5, if I find it lacking in UV response towards the deeper range. I already suggested to PrimaLuce they should have an option to select another cover glass.

[nfoto]

The UV-Nikkor is flat mostly around 70% all the way from 220 to 1100nm.

 

However, we need to factor in the Baader U. Thus my guess is that the overall response, provide one uses the UV-Nikkor in conjunction with the Baader U, is limited by the filter rather than the internal cover glass of the modified Z5.

[nfoto]

Further tests with the LifePixel Z6 and the PrimaLuce Z5 show clearly the actual lens is important, as the Z 35/1.8 S-Line adds an extra ugly ghost, not seen with the Z 50/1.8 S-line lens. The Z6 in addition showed a strong amp glow, which is entirely absent in Z5.

[dabateman]

Yes the cloudy nights thread concluded that the 35mm does have some type of internal IR led, like the Canon R mount lenses. If you cover the contacts of the 35mm or slightly dismount it than the leak goes away.

 

Very interesting that its less of a problem with the Z5.