Best & Worst Cameras for Conversion (Updates Welcomed !)

[Andrea B.]

26 May 2022 Editor's Note: This is an ongoing project. Updates welcomed anytime.

 

Updates 26 May 2022: Added material from the UV Photography Sticky.

---

---

 

 

TERMINOLOGY

IR = Infrared

UV = Ultraviolet

UV/IR = UV or IR or both

WB = white balance

 

Internal IR LED Shutter Monitor (IISM) = Internal Diagnostic IR LED

The IISM is an IR LED on the shutter board which fires to test whether shutter speed matches exposure time within a given tolerance. The IR LED can contaminate reflected UV or IR photographs with an Infrared light smear on the frame. This IR light smear is easier to detect in a reflected UV photograph, but it can often be detected in a reflected IR photograph.

 

BASIC TEST for IISM CONTAMINATION &/or LIGHT LEAKS in CAMERA BODY

 

SET UP

 

• Remove the lens and attach the camera body cap.
• Close all the port doors.
• If the camera is a DSLR type, then close the viewfinder or cover it.
• Set the camera to manual mode.
• Turn on the setting for "release without lens".
• Turn off high ISO noise reduction and long exposure noise reduction.
• Turn off any dynamic range boosters or HDR settings.
  • Example: Nikon labels this Active D-Lighting. For Sonys, it is DRO/Auto HDR.
• Set ISO to the highest native, unboosted value.
  • Example: On my Nikon D610, ISO-6400 is the highest native value.
    The boosted values are indicated with H0.3, H0.7 and H1.0.
• Set exposure time to the highest value available.
  • Example: On most cameras 30 seconds is the highest value.
    That should be quite long enough to detect light leaks or IR-LED contamination.
• Fire the shutter.

 

RESULTS

 

• GOOD: IF the resulting frame is completely dark,
               THEN you have no light leaks and no IISM leak
• GOOD: ELSE IF there are narrow edges of "amp glow" on the periphery of the LCD rectangle,
               THEN that's OK too. 
• BAD:   ELSE IF there are any light smears, patches, rays, blobs, or whatnot
              THEN you have either IISM contamination or a light leak.
   
  • RULE OUT LIGHT LEAK
    • Cover the camera with a towel or blanket thick enough to block out all light. 
      ^{Just put the camera under the bed covers. "-)}
    • Repeat the test.
    • IF the result is an entirely black frame or shows only peripheral amp glow, 
      THEN you had a light leak AND there is no IISM contamination.
    • ELSE you have IISM contamination.

 

Bonus Test 

REPEAT THE TEST TO LOOK FOR FOR LENS LIGHT LEAKS 

 

• Set up as before except put the capped lens on the camera along with any supporting adapters or helicoids.
  • Light can leak through aperture windows on lenses and also through adapters or helicoid adapters.
  • Test extendible lenses or helicoids at full extension, half-way extension and unextended.

 

-->> Please don't forget to reset your camera. <<--

 

---

 

Thank you to Kolari Vision for maintaining up-to-date lists of cameras with IR shutter monitors. This is greatly appreciated.

 

---

 

Avoid Most Cameras with the Internal IR LED Shutter Monitor (IISM) 

 

(1) It is very difficult to figure out what to recommend for these cameras which have the IISM. Some IISM bodies do not show the contamination, some show it intermittently, and some are useless because it happens every time.

 

(2) Anybody who has one of the IISM bodies, please test the workarounds for us. It would really help to know if the workarounds work every time.

 

There are some reports that certain IISM cameras do not show IR contamination because the IR LED is above 900 nm. It is not clear to me why that would be so unless the camera sensor is not sensitive to higher IR wavelengths. But most of us on UVP have made reflected IR photographs at 900 nm or above.

 

Following these IISM listings are some suggested workarounds for cameras having IISM. The workarounds may not always work. 

 

We have UVP members who report successfully using one of the listed IISM cameras for UV/IR work. I have no explanation for this. Is it possible that some IR LEDs are not as intense as others and thus the IR contamination is lessened?

 

Editor's Note:  Unfortunately. I cannot guarantee that this list is complete. It is very difficult to find infomation about IISMs from the manufacturers.

 

Nikon Full Frame DSLR with IISM

• D700, D750, D780
• D3, D4, D5, D6 and all their variations
• D850

 

Nikon Small Frame with IISM

D7000 and D7100 are reported to have non-contaminating IISM.

 

Nikon Mirrorless with IISM

Also note that these Nikon mirrorless cameras also have PDAF artifact problems.

See below under the PDAF discussion.

• Z5
• Z6, Z6 II
• Z7, Z7 II
• Z9

 

Sony Full Frame with IISM

Also note that some Sony models have PDAF artifact problems.

See below under the PDAF discussion.

• A7 II, A7R II, A7S II
• A7R III
• A7 IV
• A7C
• A9

 

Panasonic Micro 4/3 with IISM

• Gx85:  We have a report from a UVP member that IISM not a problem for the Gx85. LINK.
• GH3, GH4, GH5
• GX7, GX8, GX85, GX9
• GM1

 

Canon Full Frame with IISM

• 5D Mark IV
• 5DS, 5DS R
• 6D Mark II

 

Canon R Mirrorless with RF Lens IISM

All Canon R models when used with RF lenses can have Infrared contamination from the IISM of the lens.

Only EF lenses on the appropriate adapter should be used with full spectrum Canon R conversions.

 

Panasonic Full Frame S

Does not have IISM.

 

Pentax

Does not have IISM.

 

Olympus

Does not have IISM

 

Fuji - X

Does not have IISM.

 

 

IISM WORKAROUNDS

These are workarounds suggested for cameras having IISM.

We have not confirmed these on UVP, but I will update here if I get any reports.

 

• Shoot Mirror-up and the IR LED will not fire.
• Shoot in Silent Mode and the IR LED will not fire.
• Keep ISO low and exposure time short to avoid severe contamination.
  • This is not always feasible for reflected UV photos which tend to have longer exposures and need higher ISOs.
  • The IR LED contamination can sometimes be seen even with lower ISOs or shorter exposure times. 

 

Repeat the TEST above using the IISM Workarounds

Please let me know if the Workarounds are valid. Photos would be good too.

 

IISM REPLACEMENT

The UV/IR photographer (and good techie!) Nick Spiker has swapped out an offending IR-Led in his camera and replaced it with a SWIR-LED and detector which does not contaminate. Very, very cool! Currently this service is not yet offered by the retail conversion shops. Here is a link which briefly mentions this IR-Led swap: https://www.nickspik...dak-aerochrome/

 

---

 

 

SONY TRANSLUCENT MIRROR:  Conversions Need Lots of UV or IR Light

Composing and focus with these Sonys can only be done via Live View. So there must be enough UV or IR light to enable this. Also, autofocus will not work in a conversion, although we typically do not use autofocus for our UV/IR work.

• A33, A37
• A55, A57, A58
• A65, a68
• A77, A77 II

 

.

NIKON DSLR:   Conversions Cannot Measure In-Camera White Balance 

I don't think many folks are using a Nikon DSLR these days for reflected UV photography, so this is just for the record.

 

Nikon DSLRs cannot measure white balance under a UV-pass filter. They can measure WB under some IR-pass filters. However, a WB measurement can be made which pushes the RGGB coordinates away from an oversaturated red mess. This is done by making an in-camera WB measurement in *visible light* against a monitor screen displaying a magenta-grey JPG (a magenta which is not too saturated or too bright). I made a magenta JPG in Photoshop Elements for this purpose. The resulting white balance can be further tuned using Nikon's in-camera WB chart tool.

 

Alternately, set the Nikon Picture Control to Monochrome and expose in such a way as to keep the histogram off the right-hand wall. It's easy to review the UV photo on the Nikon LCD with a Mono setting because there is no color overload. And, the raw file will still hold all the (false) color and can be white-balanced in a converter app.

 

 

---

Any mirrorless camera using phase detect autofocus is prone to striping artifacts. In ordinary Visible photography, PDAF striping is rare. Wide dynamic range scenes and/or brightly illuminated, low ISO scenes can often induce the banding in a non-converted camera. And if the banding is there, then shadow lifts make it look worse.

 

In a full spectrum converted mirrorless camera, PDAF striping seems to be exacerbated. UV photos typically have wide dynamic range, and shadow lifts are often sometimes used to bring out dark details in UV. The UV false color white balance step induces a radical color shift. If striping is present, it will look worse in the processed UV file. Any striping artifacts in an IR file can also be further worsened in the converter with the typical IR processing of stronger contrast, channel swapping, enhancement of edge acutance and/or a white balance step. There are some software fixes available which can clean up some of the PDAF striping with varying degrees of success.

 

Unfortunately, we have not seen warnings from the major retail conversion shops about exacerbated PDAF striping in some mirrorless conversions. So, again unfortunately, you are on your own about deciding whether to convert a particular mirrorless camera. Please first check to see whether your camera uses phase detect autofocus.

 

FYI PDAF-Only Focusing:  Possible Striping/Banding Artifacts 

PDAF = phase detect autofocus

 

This is NOT a warning about avoiding certain mirrorless cameras. It is simply meant to be educational so that you know more about PDAF striping if it does occur.

 

Any mirrorless camera using phase detect autofocus is prone to occasional striping artifacts usually caused by flare or backlighting and also sometimes seen in scenes with wide dynamic range or in brightly illuminated, low ISO scenes. Under most lighting scenarios, PDAF striping does not occur at all.

 

From Jim Kasson:  LINK

"It is reported to occur in conjunction with lens flare caused by reflections off the PDAF pixels on the cameras sensor. It often is invisible until the files are pushed a bit."

 

From Thom Hogan: LINK

" PDAF striping — This typically occurs when you have light sources in the scene and the lens is producing flare. This occurs on all of the Sony mirrorless cameras, though is most visible on the latest generation A7/A9 bodies, which have more PDAF sensors in them."

 

After conversion the PDAF striping artifacts might be even more apparent in reflected UV photographs because white balancing false colors and lifting dark shadows is rather hard on the pixels. The best (worst?) example of post-conversion PDAF artifacts we have seen here is from Birna's Nikon Z6 conversion. LINK

FWIW, the horizontal banding artifacts in Nikon Zs are said to occur from the side effects of Nikon's attempted PDAF artifact fix! (Has Nikon fixed the fix? Sounds like a rabbit hole in the making.)

 

Currently (18 May 2022) I do not know whether there have been any firmware upgrades for Nikon Zs or Sony As which might lessen the PDAF artifacts.

 

The software converter app Raw Therapee has a PDAF striping fix for some cameras. Check other apps for such fixes.

 

We cannot possibly list all PDAF cameras here. But the following cameras have been discussed a lot on camera forums as having occasional PDAF striping occurrences.

 

• Nikon Z50, Z6, Z7, Z7 II
• Sony a7 II, a7S II, a7 III, a7R III, a7R IV, a1, a9
• Olympus OM-D EM

 

Some links:

• PDAF striping on the Sony a7R III
• Sony a7 III, a7R III, a7 II, a7S II, a9 PDAF striping
• Nikon Z50 PDAF banding
• PDAF striping in the Sony a7R IV
• Nikon Z7 PDAF banding FAQS
• Debunking false claims about Sony A7 III PDAF striping
• Sony a7 III PDAF striping - FAQS

 

---

 

GOOD LIST 

 

If it is not on the IISM lit above, then it is here on the Good List -- although not visibly, because I cannot possibly list all the cameras good for conversion (IR or full spectrum). However, I do plan to gather the useful comments about converted cameras which members have actually used successfully. 

 

General Remarks

 

Image Quality

Leaving aside sensor sensitivity to UV/IR light for the moment, it is true for both reflected UV or reflected IR photography, just as it is true for Visible light photography, that the better the sensor, the better the image quality. Get the best sensor your finances permit. Good dynamic range is useful in UV photography. High ISO with good color and little noise is useful in both UV and IR work. Color is not as important, methinks, because all color is false in the UV/IR world.

 

Flange Focal Distance (FFD): Shorter is better for old lenses and that means Mirrorless

Given that dedicated UV lenses are outrageously expensive, most UV photographers look for those old, simply designed, uncoated, generic 35/3.5s or for old enlarger lenses. It is easiest to adapt them to mirrorless cameras having a short flange focal length so that focusing can be achieved at all distances including infinity focus.

 

In-Camera White Balance Measurement

As mentioned above, under dark UV-pass filters, Nikon DSLRs cannot make an in-camera WB measurement. If in-camera WB is important to you, then avoid Nikons for conversion.

 

Please do note that cameras which can measure WB under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters are sometimes slightly inaccurate. Just so you know not to expect WB perfection every time. WB can always be tweaked during raw file conversion by making a photo during your shoot of some WB standard such as PTFE or Spectralon.

 

Canon EOS, various models

DSLR, APS-C/APS-H/Full Frame, Long FFD

Image quality has greatly improved over time. Nice menus. Can set in-camera white balance under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters?? Robust bodies for field use. Some old lenses cannot be adapted to Canon's 42.0 mm FFD. 

• Remember to check the IISM List above and avoid Canons which have the which have the internal IR LED.

 

Pentax K, various models

DSLR, APC-S/Full Frame, Long FFD

Good to very good (K-1, K-1 II, K-3) image quality. Nice menus. Can set in-camera white balance under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters?? Robust bodies for field use. Some old lenses cannot be adapted to Pentax's long 45.46.0 mm FFD, but you have a wide range of old M42 lenses to choose from.

• No IISM.

 

Nikon D600, D610, D800, D810

DSLR, Full Frame, Long FFD.

Very good image quality, but Nikons are notorious for not being able to set an in-camera white balance under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters. You get used to it. White balance can always be set in the converter. Robust bodies for field use. Most old lenses cannot be adapted to Nikon's 46.50 mm FFD. Two currently manufactured UV dedicated lenses are F-mount:  Rayfact 105/4.5 and Coastal Optics 60/4.0.

Kolari Vision mentions that the D600 and D800 have an IISM, but it does not cause contamination. LINK

• Remember to check the IISM List above and avoid Nikons which have the internal IR LED.

 

Nikon DX

DSLR, Small Frame, Long FFD

The same Full Frame remarks apply here.

Kolari Vision mentions that the D7000 and D7100 have an IISM, but it does not cause contamination. LINK

I am unable to find other definitive information about whether Nikon DX bodies have IR LEDs. But we have no reports of problems.

 

Olympus OM-D EM, various models

Mirrorless, Micro 4/3, Short FFD.

These Olys are a favorite conversion for some respected UV/IR photographers. Light weight, easy to use. Can set in-camera WB under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters. Average image quality at higher ISOs, so do provide good illumination. Said to have deeper reach into the UV than most. 

• PDAF might cause striping artifacts.
• No IISM.

 

Panasonic Lumix G, various models

Mirrorless, Micro 4/3, Short FFD.

Very good for UV video. Light weight, easy to use. Easy menus. Can set in-camera WB under dark UV or IR filters. Bodies less robust than some for field use. Average image quality at higher ISOs, so do provide good illumination.

• PDAF might cause striping artifacts.
• Remember to check the IISM list above and avoid G models which have the internal IR LED

 

Sony alpha E-mount, various models

Mirrorless, APS-C/Full Frame, Short FFD.

Currently high on the list of best full-frame sensors, but Sonys are notorious for bad menus. You get used to it. Can set in-camera WB under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters. Bodies less robust than Pentax, Canon, Nikon.

• PDAF might cause occasional striping artifacts.
• Remember to check the IISM list above and avoid Sony models which have the internal IR LED.

 

Sony NEX

Many UV/IR photographers started with a NEX conversion.

 

Fuji-X

Mirrorless, Small Frame, Short FFD

• No IISM

 

Panasonic S1, S1H, S1R

Mirrorless, Full Frame, Short FFD.

Currently high on the list of best full-frame sensors. Easy menus. Can set in-camera WB under dark UV-pass or IR-pass filters. Rather big and bulky, but you get used to it. Robust bodies for field use. The S1R produces a slightly different false color palette than usual in white-balanced, reflected UV photos.

• No IISM.
• No PDAF.

 

Sigma fp

Mirrorless, Full Frame, Short FFD

Unusual small modular camera! Viewfinder, grip and hot shoe are add-ons. Said to be very easy to DIY convert to full spectrum. Image quality said to be very film like. 

• No IISM.
• No PDAF.

 

---

 

 

OLDIES BUT GOODIES

Or should I say, oldies but cheapies?

 

Nikon DSLRs (old):

• Usable unmodified: D1, D1H, D1X, D100, D2H, D50, D60, D80.
• Usable unmodifed, but better if modded: D2HS.
• Good unmodified: D70, D70S, D40.
• Must be modified: D40x, D200

 

Fujifilm Finepix (old):

• Must be modified: S3 Pro, S5 Pro
• Pre-modified by Fuji: S3 Pro-UVIR, IS PRO. Both no longer manufactured, but available used.
  Don't reach too far into the UV though.

 

Kodak (old):

When we first started the Stickies, we listed these cams as having UV/IR potential, but I don't know if they can be found anymore.

• DCS 520, 560
• DCS 620, 620X, 660
• DCS 720X, 760C

[colinbm]

Having converted a few cameras, I would put the Sigma fp, mirrorless, on top of the list for the easiest to convert to full spectrum.

[dabateman]

The problem with lists like these is they can end up being user specific for what is good or a bad thing.

Do you Only want a monochrome image? Than a Sigma Foveon sensor like the Quattro or SD1M would be best. You just pop off the dust filter and you can see from 340ish to 400nm. The SD1M doesn't have live view, but the Quattro do.

Do you want only upper UV signal as you don't own or plan to buy a quartz lens. If you just want to stick with a Canon 40mm f2.8 stm lens than the list is different than if you want to use a Nikon 105mm UV lens.

Also the filter will affect the needed range.

Unless we just want a list of cameras with the deepest UV sensitivity. That is a small list from what we know. Sony A7mk1, A6000, Olympus Em5mk2,  Canon EOS M. Also the build it your self Raspberry pi with a MaxMax monochrome pi hq sensor is most likely the deepest into UV you will get.

[JMC]

Well of the cameras I have had converted;

 

Sony A7III, converted to multispectral. Good. Although I am not a fan of Sony cameras, the conversion has been good, and I don't get issues with IR shutter monitor that some have mentioned.

Canon EOS 5DS R, converted to multispectral and to monochrome. Ok, but I do get issues with some contamination of the images near the bottom edge and the right hand side especially at higher ISOs. This could be IR shutter monitor related, or amp glow. Not recommended.

Nikon d800, converted to monochrome. Good. No issues with light leaks, IR LED shutter monitor or amp glow.

Nikon d850, converted to monochrome. Not good. Issues with shutter monitor LED at higher ISOs. Not recommended (more severe than I had with the EOS 5DS R).

[Alaun]

Yes, it is often not good or bad  but in between (like in pictures, there is a lot of grey in between black and white).

 

I like to work handheld without a tripod, so i need high ISO.

Both of my two most recent full spectrum cameras show some issues there, sometimes 

 

(all pictures taken with the UV-Nikkor, Baader U + S8612 2mm)

 

The D810 can produce a spot in the lower left corner and the Z6 produces sometimes a huge spot in the right half of the pictures,

both especially when these areas are rather dark:

 

(First 3 with the d810 and 2 last with the Z6 all at ISO 12800)

 

EDIT: The spot with the d810 come from a leakage, see post below)

 

[Alaun]

and at e.g. ISO 3600 it might be ok (Z6):

 

[ulf]

I have experience with two multispectral converted cameras.

The Canon 60D and then the Sony A7III.

 

Shifting to the Sony was a really big improvement-step.

 

Beside the terrible software control interface I mostly like the Sony camera very much.

 

The main improvement is the dynamic range and low noise sensor. I think this is still in level with the best sensors of today.

No hint of any issues with light leaks, IR LED shutter monitor or amp glow, even after long exposures at max ISO.

 

With the short back flange distance and a the availability of good adapters I can use many more lenses, for UV, VIS and IR.

 

With a suitable BG-filter in an adapter or on a lens the camera works well as a normal VIS camera with good AF function, for AF-lenses.

I see no reason at all to be faithful to Canon, by  getting a Canon body even if I have very many Canon lenses in my collection.

 

The IBIS image stabilisation with the sensor-mechanics gives good stabilisation to any lens.

Earlier A7-models can not do that.

 

The camera do not see the deeper UV, like the ones on David's list above, but it goes deep enough for my needs.

 

[Alaun]

Actually long exposure times at high ISO might "heal" the shutter light effect as the LED might be active only for a very short time.

[ulf]

42 minutes ago, Alaun said:

Actually long exposure times at high ISO might "heal" the shutter light effect as the LED might be active only for a very short time.

That makes sense, I have not seen any problem at short exposure times with high ISO, but not tried it much.

 

I normally run at the two base ISOs for the sensor's dual gain system, 100 and 640, to get as low noise as possible.

No problem there either.

[Andrea B.]

Great information so far, please keep it coming, OK??

---

 

 

I have posted an IR Shutter Monitor + Light Leak Test above.

• This is something you *must* do if you are seeing any kind of light patches in your photos.
• This is something you *must* do to stay alert for developing light leaks in your gear. They can sneak up on you.

It would be great if you could post your outcomes to this topic.

 

---

 

 

David wrote:  The problem with lists like these is they can end up being user specific for what is good or a bad thing.

 

Be that as it may, and I do not disagree, we *do* need to update our collective knowledge about the basic IR shutter monitor issues or other basic problems which prevent a good conversion. More "user specific" determinations can certainly be made in another topic on another day. I know you and others have some deeper information which we should also collect once this survey is made.  

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill De Jager]

Thanks, Andrea and JMC, for the info on the D850.  I'd considered an IR conversion but now that's questionable.  At what ISO does the problem start to crop up?  If it's high enough and I'm shooting in IR then I might be able to stay below that ISO.

 

Here are my experiences.  I was being casual rather than methodical in using these cameras so I might not have uncovered some sorts of bad behavior, things that might crop up under certain circumstances such as high ISOs.

 

CANON

 

700D: Good. I haven't used this one in a long time, though.

6D: Good

 

NIKON

D5100: Worked well enough, but limitations and interface frustrating.  Won't meter with unchipped lenses

D7000: Good

D7200: Good

D610: Good

 

PANASONIC

 

GX-1: Good at the time, but poor noise performance at modestly elevated ISOs means it's probably a poor choice today.

 

SONY

 

A6000: Good

 

Thanks to past good advice in the stickies I avoided converting cameras that are problems.  Thanks again for that!

 

 

 

 

[Andrea B.]

 

Bill writes: Thanks to past good advice in the stickies I avoided converting cameras that are problems.  Thanks again for that!

 

I am so happy to hear that! 

 

This all started way back with my Nikon D700 full spectrum conversion. I'm sure I was not the very first First Person to discover the IR Shutter Monitor problem, but I was the first person to find it on the Old Nikongear UVIR board where so many of us hung out. It took a while to figure it out because I kept thinking there was a light leak. And apparently the retail conversion shops either had not tested for the problem or had not noticed it. I wrote to the ones I knew back them to let them know. Eventually Life Pixel and Kolari Vision began to provide a list of cameras with the problem to warn customers.

[Alaun]

Arghh…. You also need the right light for the leak test…

I just tried the D810 and everything was fine… Yes, because the test pictures above come from sun light and at home, there are LED-lights - without much IR.

 

So the spot in the lower left comes from a leakage.

Now searchingg for that, it turns out it seems to come somewhere from the top, where the LCD display is. Off course I had not covered that during the test in the sun (you want to know, what you are doing).

[Andrea B.]

My D610 leaks badly from the small upper LCD. Just keep it covered and all is well.

---

 

I have made good progress for the BAD LIST above. And I began to think that we do not really need to list all cameras which are GOOD for conversion. That would be quite tedious. But what I would like to do is to list cameras which our members are successfully using for UV/IR photography along with comments. 

[dancingcat]

@Andrea B. I ran your test on my Olympus EM-1 mk2 (Kolari conversion) and image came up completely black.  Happy happy.

[Andrea B.]

As far as I know the Olys do not have any internal IR diagnostic LEDs.

But it is always good to know that you do not have any pesky light leaks.

[Andrea B.]

I am really having trouble finding definitive information from Nikon itself about whether the Nikon D850 has a shutter monitor or not. The specifications for all the current DSLRs on Nikon USA do not include info about internal IR LEDs.

[Andrea B.]

I was just over on CloudyNights.com and found a topic from 2020 (!!!) about a Nikon Z6 conversion which did not work out well because of the IR shutter monitor in the Z6. It made me feel really awful that some of the astro folks who need camera conversions (IR, UV, H-alpha, etc) still do not know about this internal IR LED problem !! The conversion was purchased from LifePixel I think. But LifePixel does post warnings about the problem, so how this happened to the guy on CloudyNights, I don't know.

 

Is anybody here a member of CloudyNights.com? If so, then please post a warning for all the members about NOT converting cameras with IR-LEDs. Give them our preliminary list above. We have been warning about the IR shutter monitor since 2013 (9 years ago) here on UVP and since 2008 (14 years ago) on Old Nikongear. (That is when the D700 was released.) It is terrible that knowledge available to us for 9-13 years is not more widely known.

[Bill De Jager]

7 hours ago, Bill De Jager said:

Thanks, Andrea and JMC, for the info on the D850.  I'd considered an IR conversion but now that's questionable.  At what ISO does the problem start to crop up?  If it's high enough and I'm shooting in IR then I might be able to stay below that ISO.

 

 

I just found Jonathan's original post on the D850 IR problem, at https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/5362-your-input-needed-best-worst-cameras-for-full-spectrum-conversion/.  It looks like I could use an IR-converted D850 for daylight landscape photography without undue risk of IR fogging, particularly on a tripod or with image-stabilized lenses.  I guess exotic types of photography, like trying to catch a moonlit IR landscape, would be out but that's OK.  So would trying to capture a scene during the "blue hour",  given that so little IR comes from that kind of sky.

[Nate]

The only 2 Cameras I had converted to Full Spectrum are the Canon 77D and the canon T7(1500D). Both cameras do Not suffer from light leaks of any kind.

Both are apsc sensor size. Both also are Not great at higher iso. After using both for a while, I find the T7 easier to adjust exposure comp when shooting UV as it's not a touch screen LCD and can hold a button while using dial. Could Not find same feature on the 77D. The 77D has DPAF, and the T7 does Not(and is newer).  I also find the T7 shows more Fraunhofer lines on the UV side of the spectrum when using a diffraction grating in Sunlight. I do  realize the Sun may be the limiting factor for lower in the UV range

 

 I consider them OK for UV,  as both see down to roughly 340nm in Sunlight and not very great high iso, but are fine for my needs atm.  Both Cameras where converted by the same person, Isaac Szabo in the US, and He did a great job, and will send next conversion to him.

 

 

 

[nfoto]

To what Alaun presented for the modified Z6: do keep ISO as low as posible to mitigate the ugly greenish blob on the right-hand side. It starts appearing when ISO is raised and from ISO 3200 onwards becomes quite visible. Amp glow? Z5 does not show this issue, at least not to the detrimental degree of the Z6.

 

Both models, however, can easily get annoying light leaks from inadequate adapters, bellows devices, or similar. Like most converted cameras in fact.

 

[JMC]

10 hours ago, Bill De Jager said:

 

I just found Jonathan's original post on the D850 IR problem, at https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/5362-your-input-needed-best-worst-cameras-for-full-spectrum-conversion/.  It looks like I could use an IR-converted D850 for daylight landscape photography without undue risk of IR fogging, particularly on a tripod or with image-stabilized lenses.  I guess exotic types of photography, like trying to catch a moonlit IR landscape, would be out but that's OK.  So would trying to capture a scene during the "blue hour",  given that so little IR comes from that kind of sky.

Hi Bill, I think you included the wrong link - it should be this one;

Looking back at the original images I shared, it doesn't seem as bad now as I thought at the time, but it depends on what ISO's you'd be using. If you're hanging around at 1600 and below all the time then it's probably much less of a problem.

[Bill De Jager]

Thank you, Jonathan.  Yes, I had intended to post the first link, and I appreciate the correction.

 

I can't seem to find anything about an IR contamination problem with the D810.  I did find two threads (one here by Andrea and one on dpreview.com) where an unconverted D810 was used with a long exposure.  Andrea didn't find internal IR problems, and the other person's photo had a spot that might be flare from external light. 

 

UVP

 

DPR

 

I have a D810 that I was going to dispose of but I'm now leaning towards it being my new F-mount  IR camera.  The sensor is FSI and there is no tilting screen but you can't have everything.

[Andrea B.]

I am wondering if these two test results might indicate that the Nikon D850 has an internal IR LED and the D810 does not? 

The photos were displayed in Photo Mechanic at an 8X zoom. Then screen shots were made.

 

Click on the png, then click again to see largest size.

 

Nikon D810

30" at ISO-12800

 

 

Nikon D850

30" at ISO-12800

The D850 has ISO-25600, but the D810 does not. So I lowered ISO on the D850 to match ISO-12800

This one has more red pixels and more red in the histogram.

Is that from the IR LED?

[Bill De Jager]

Intriguing, Andrea.  I think you're right.

 

These days I'm really trying to move to only cameras with a tilting or folding LCD.  It's called getting old! 

 

Seriously, if I want the camera to be high or low, and I have to use the LCD instead of a viewfinder, then I don't want to have to contort my body to get a good view of the LCD.  Unfortunately I'm having to keep a few exceptions.  At least with IR I take few if any ground-level shots.

 

When the D810 came out I was disappointed in two things - the fixed LCD, and the CF slot in lieu of an XQD slot.  Remember when Nikon, and Canon too, had a folding LCD only on their one-step-up-from-the-bottom consumer models, and nowhere else in their lineups?  I got the D810 anyway because it resolved an important issue with the D800 (live view resolution).  It was my first high-resolution camera and it's served me well over the years.