Having the UV-Nikkor for UV photography -- what could possbly go wrong?

[nfoto]

To paraphrase the thread title: almost anything,

 

There will be strange moments such as this attempt of capturing the small flowers of Sedum acre,

 

 

 

Oops.

 

Next attempt, covering the viewfinder ocular of my D600 gives a better result.

 

 

The UV devil is in the details.

 

 

 

 

 

[lukaszgryglicki]

Yeah, normal for me - forgot that soooo many times.

For me UV-Nikkor is too expensive, and then too long & slow (105mm is too long, f=4.5 is too slow). I know that I could make a *lot* better photos with UV-dedicated lens, but, recently, I prefer the sheer force of Nikkor 55/1.2 instead.

 

[dabateman]

Of course your should have jumped to the obvious first two conclusions when you saw that.

1. You have a nice localized Aurora borealis in your room.

2. Alien mind tampering is being captured. 

Then you can move on to the practical fix of covering your viewfinder. 

 

That's quite the OVF leak though.  With the right subject you could use that well.

 

That first image should also  be a selling point for your Z5. The Z6 would even look better. 

 

[Andrea B.]

Birna, this made me laugh! 

 

...and Dave, your comment made me laugh too!!

 

I've been there, done that on failure to close the DSLR viewfinder window.

And I have a reflex action wanting always to close the mirrorless EVF. La!

[Doug A]

Awesome 2nd image. Enjoyed this post Birna. I've forgotten to use the blind cover with the Pentax K-1 many times. Now I just leave it on the camera, except when shooting IR. There are two little pockets on the strap for eyepiece cover, extra SD card, and wireless remote.

 

Thanks for sharing,

Doug A

 

[OlDoinyo]

Now that mirrorless cameras are replacing SLRs for many photographers, this is one issue that will eventually be a thing of the past (though not for me, yet.)