Discussion on cameras and lenses for UV

[Nico]

 

You can go onto the Schott site and get software to make charts like the one you posted.

Thus you can design your own combos of filters. It is interesting !!

 

 

Andrea,

Do you have a link to the software from Schott that you mention?

I couldn't find it in my first attempts.

Thanks, Nico

[nfoto]

Bjørn,

Can you point to a retailer who has the K2/K3 rings in stock? - I couldn't find them, so far.

 

Thanks, Nico

 

Easy to find on eBay, or search KEH. They are part of the K-ring set consisting of 5 items labelled K1 to K5.

 

Here is a pointer to K-rings at KEH

 

http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Close-up-and-Bellow-Accessories/1/sku-NK200090302470?r=FE

 

they are asking $25.

[nfoto]

I may have various K-ring items as a surplus too. Must do a thorough inventory when I return from my present trip. Over the years probably have purchased at least 25 complete K-ring sets. Most of which apparently hardly ever used by their former owners, I'd like to add. K-rings are to the experimental photographer what Lego bricks are to kids.

 

Thus, if you cannot find any of the K-rings online, I might be able to help (after taking a tally of my current stock to ensure there are surplus, that is).

[igoriginal]

Easy to find on eBay, or search KEH. They are part of the K-ring set consisting of 5 items labelled K1 to K5.

 

Here is a pointer to K-rings at KEH

 

http://www.keh.com/c...0090302470?r=FE

 

Thank you for the link, Fierce Bear. I was wondering myself where to find these, since I couldn't locate them through Ebay search on my first attempt.

 

Based on the description, these rings are specifically designed for Nikon mount? I cannot tell visually, since there is no product photo of the item(s). However, if these are specifically manufactured for Nikon Mount, then they are useless to me, since none of my full-spectrum-converted cameras are Nikon models.

[igoriginal]

I have four (or five, if you include UV video): broadband D600, D200, GH-2*2, and D3200 with the Baader U 2" internally. The D200 now rarely sees use so perhaps should no longer be counted in. The D600 is used for much of the studio work and has its dedicated UV-Nikkor and studio flashes. The D3200 is a field kit outfitted with its own UV-Nikkor or a Noflexar 35. I'm using the SB-140 flash for this camera. Another SB-140 and the Coastal Optics 60 mm f/4 APO are allocated to one of the GH-2 units. This GH-2 is accompanied by a D300 with 120 mm f/4 Medical Nikkor for reference captures.

 

The second GH-2 is for video and hence uses any lens required for the actual shoot.

 

Been thru the Nikon D70, D200, D300, D700 (huge bust!!), D7000, Lumix GH1 and something else I can't remember right now.

 

Currently using the Nikon D600 and Pentax K5 which provide flange focal distances for about half my lenses. Prolly need a Sony or another m/4/3 for some other lenses. We shall see.

 

I would like to play with medium format some day, but the UV lenses aren't there AFAIK except for the UV-Sonnar (??), but I'm not crazy about that lens and have not "collected" it.

 

OK, back to work for Annedi.

 

Speaking of which, the interchangeable lens cameras that I currently have in my possession which are full-spectrum-modified are: Panasonic models G2, G5, GF3. Olympus models EP-1, E-PL2. Pentax model K-01.

 

The Pentax K-01 is an APS-C sensor format, so it has the highest dynamic range of all of them. In fact, its dynamic range is identical to the Pentax K-5 DSLR, which is rated as one of the best-made APS-C models on the market. This is because the Pentax K-01 uses the same sensor as its more robust K-5 brother, except that it is mirrorless and more compact compared to the K-5.

 

Otherwise, I have thus not been financially privileged enough to owning any Full-Frame models as of yet. Not for UV work, nor ANY photographic work for that matter. The most sophisticated DSLRs that I own right now are the Pentax K-5 and the Nikon D7000. And those are my "workhorse" cameras; The ones that pay the bills (for my paid photo gigs). And so, I cannot convert those to full-spectrum.

 

As for owning the Nikon D600, I have heard that it has had issues with lubricant leaking inside of the mirror-box assembly, and having the lubricant splatter all over the sensor. In fact, the D600 has become INFAMOUS for this production issue, and is an ongoing embarrassment to Nikon, from what I have read on many forums. So, have you both gotten around this problem, or have you two been fortunate enough to purchase D600s that have averted this mass-manufacturing issue?

 

If I ever get a FF body, it will probably be a D800. I will NEVER risk it with a D600, unless it is a REFURBISHED D600 and is DOCUMENTED as such. So that I will not get stuck with a potentially "leaky" camera.

[colinbm]

BTW ... which system is your "flagship" for UV work?

Hi Iggy

My flagship is the Sigma Foveon SD15 dSLR, user convertible to full spectrum at will

My walk around is a self converted to full spectrum Sigma Foveon DP2 compact.

My 'work-in-progress' UV enabled camera will be an older Sigma Foveon SD9, when I swap the sensors cover glass with quartz asap.

Cheers

Col

[nfoto]

Thank you for the link, Fierce Bear. I was wondering myself where to find these, since I couldn't locate them through Ebay search on my first attempt.

 

Based on the description, these rings are specifically designed for Nikon mount? I cannot tell visually, since there is no product photo of the item(s). However, if these are specifically manufactured for Nikon Mount, then they are useless to me, since none of my full-spectrum-converted cameras are Nikon models.

 

You can use them in the front of the lens to make a quick-release filter system.

 

As to the D600, Nikon repair facility replaced the shutter unit and I've seen no 'splatter' indications.

[igoriginal]

As to the D600, Nikon repair facility replaced the shutter unit and I've seen no 'splatter' indications.

 

Glad they resolved the issue for you quickly. I have a few friends who own a D600, and their repair process was NOT quite as smooth as yours. One of my friends had to send it back not once, but twice! The first time he sent it for repairs, he got it back and the problem was STILL there.

 

I guess it's best to buy manufacturer-REFURBISHED D600 models, at this point. Because buying any "new old stock" from a local merchant (that which still hasn't been sold off from the first batch of releases) would be probably a gamble. Or should I say, "Russian Roulette."

 

There are, in fact, those reviewers on the net who state that the release of the D610 last year (a "successor" to the D600) was an attempt to generally re-release the same model, but with the leaking lubricant problem engineered out of the equation ... as the D610 otherwise has only very MINOR upgrade changes compared to the 600, which would not have enough merit for having a D600 owner switch to a D610 outside of the need to avoid the lubricant-leaking issues alone.

 

So, yeah. When I finally raise enough $$$$ to get a Full-Frame, I will likely either consider a D800, or a D610. I will not even RISK it with a D600, unless it is stated as "manufacturer refurbished." I won't risk it with "new old stock" (unsold batches of the first product run / release).

 

Of course, another option (if it EVER happens) is getting a Full-Frame made by Pentax. I personally prefer Pentax over Nikon, when given the choice (I have more Pentax-mount glass than any other collection of lenses. Plus, I like the fact that Pentax shoots its RAW files in the "universal" DNG file format, instead of some proprietary crap. I wish OTHER camera companies finally would get on board the DNG train. Pentax is CLEARLY a humble pioneer). However, for reasons unknown, Pentax STILL has not released a digital FF model. Shrug. :P (Although they make KICK-BUTT medium-format models!)

 

Come on, Pentax! Get on the ball, will you?! Make that FF! ;)

[igoriginal]

Hi Iggy

My flagship is the Sigma Foveon SD15 dSLR, user convertible to full spectrum at will

My walk around is a self converted to full spectrum Sigma Foveon DP2 compact.

My 'work-in-progress' UV enabled camera will be an older Sigma Foveon SD9, when I swap the sensors cover glass with quartz asap.

Cheers

Col

 

I've heard good things about Sigma's Foveon. I've considered purchasing older (used, but well-cared for models), myself. At least as a second body, for experimentation.

 

How has having a Foveon-based system worked for you, in UV, compared to a Bayer sensor system? Is the white-balancing technique for obtaining "proper UV colors" on Foveon-based systems any different?

[igoriginal]

A converted Point-n-Shoot would indeed be fun for scouting UV shoots and for general fun stuff.

 

I just happen to have three models of full-spectrum-modified compact / point & shoot cameras:

 

1. Panasonic Lumix ZS19

2. Canon SX20

3. Olympus Camedia 8080

 

I originally had acquired all three of these for "color IR" work, rather than UV work. So, I have not tried to experiment with UV-only, on any of these models. But I plan to, shortly.

 

However, I will say that of all three of these models, calling the Olympus Camedia 8080 a "point & shoot" camera would be a HUGE disservice to its capabilities, because besides it having a fixed zoom-lens, it otherwise has VERY ROBUST options / capabilities that almost rival a DSLR! In fact, aside from not being able to change lenses on this camera, it can do just about ANYTHING that a DSLR can do! It is THAT capable and robust, in configurability! Not to mention, a magnesium-alloy, ruggedized body!

 

I would therefore rather call the Olympus Camedia 8080 a "bridge" or "hybrid" camera, rather than a simple "point & shoot." The internal guts of a DSLR, but the fixed-lens system of a compact.

 

As far as white-balancing goes, The Lumix ZS19 and the Camedia 8080 can white-balance (in camera) just fine, when it comes all ALL types of IR work. They nail it every time. The Canon SX20, on the other hand, struggles a bit with in-camera custom-white-balancing. It requires a few attempts, sometimes, to get it to custom white-balance the way I want it it.

 

For these reasons, I wouldn't even CONSIDER looking into Canon compact cameras for possible UV work. Not to mention, many of the more MODERN compact / fixed-lens Canon models have VERY AGGRESSIVE uv/ir blocking glass on the inside, even before undergoing conversion. So, I suspect that custom white-balancing for UV-only work may not work very work, even after the internal hot mirror is removed.

 

Also, it should be mentioned that many of the more current compact / fixed-lens cameras implement HEAVY COATINGS on their lenses. And being "super-zooms", they probably employ a highly-complex optical formula that would block all useful UV energy, even if the sensor ITSELF is converted for full-spectrum use.

 

So, where I plan to look for possible UV-transmitting suspects among compact / point & shoot models ... is the much OLDER compact cameras, pre-dating the early to mid 2000's, where their coatings may have been more simple, their lower zooming-range capabilities implementing less complex optical formulas, their internal hot-mirrors less aggressive, and their anti-aliasing filters very crude (or even possibly non-existing in some cases).

 

It is well known, for instance, that the earliest Camedia line of Olympus compact / fixed-lens digital cameras (such as the Olympus Camedia 2020) were made with VERY "leaky" internal hot-mirrors (or possibly NO dedicated internal hot-mirrors at all). This is why the Olympus Camedia 2020, in particular, has been such a good compact camera for IR work without even REQUIRING conversion!

 

(Just like some of the earliest Nikon DSLRS, such as the D70, have ALSO been good candidates for non-converted / off-the-shelf work in alternate-spectral imaging.)

 

So, my first test will be to see if my Olympus Camedia 8080 has ANY useful UV-only transmission at all. I DO suspect, right off hand, that there MAY be some UV getting through to the sensor (possibly down to the mid 360's, or at least lower 370's), because when I do multi-spectral photography (UV+VIS+IR), I get MUCH more vivid, dynamic, and "pastel-like" colors, compared to other full-spectrum-converted compact / fixed-lens cameras. So, this is why I suspect that some UV might be getting through. I could be wrong, but this is my hunch, and it is always worth a try, no?

 

Here is a multi-spectral (UV+VIS+IR) photograph of a dragonfly sitting on foliage, which I have taken last summer using the Olympus Camedia, bare-lens (no filter). The ACTUAL color of the dragonfly's body is green (in "human" eyesight), and the foliage is actually a deep green. But, in this multi-spectral (full spectrum) exposure, you can see that I am getting a LOT of dynamically-varied "pastel" coloration. More so, than any other full-spectrum-converted compact camera. So, I suspect that SOME UV energy may be getting through. Again, I could be wrong. But I will pursue this, and start doing some UV-only tests with the Camedia 8080, and see what I find.

 

(I should also note that the Olympus Camedia 8080 was one of the very FEW cameras to use a relatively LARGE sensor for a compact / fixed-lens camera: A 2/3"-sized sensor! That is HUGE, for a compact / fixed-lens system! By contrast, many of today's compact cameras use the much cheaper and smaller 1/2.3" or 1/3.2" sensors, or sometimes even SMALLER!)

 

 

 

[Andrea B.]

Igor, I had wanted to mention to you that we think it is OK to reference vendors in posts. This is very common. The only thing which should be disclosed by a poster is the existence of any monetary relationship between them and a store or vendor. ;)

 

****

 

This is a very pretty dragonfly photo !! I enjoy unfiltered photographs and have a few non-nature series I've worked on with my Lumix unfiltered.

 

The fact that the leaves are fairly light indicates the preponderance of IR in this unfiltered dragonfly shot. Relatively speaking there is a very small amount of UV in sunlight compared to IR. So because of the large amount of IR, we know that it will contaminate the Visible light to some extent (your bright leaves) and it will greatly contaminate UV light in this kind of unfiltered shot. It is very difficult to know whether any UV is actually contributing to the photo or not. It is really more of a VIS + IR shot.

 

Were you to photograph a flower with a known UV-dark bullseye using an unfiltered cam/lens, you would see very little of the dark bulleye in the shot. Bjørn has an example of this in his articles on his old website. Better still, make your own shots to prove this.

 

A lot of the false coloration in an unfiltered shot like this is dependent on the underlying White Balance setting being used in the camera. Incandescent (tungsten) works very nicely for colourful unfiltered shots. If you do an in-camera white balance and shoot unfiltered it can look fairly washed out. Of course, given that there is no "true" colour for such an unfiltered shot, you are free to beef up the colours in the editor if you want make that artistic choice.

 

*****

 

Thank you for the info about your compact cams !!

[igoriginal]

The fact that the leaves are fairly light indicates the preponderance of IR in this unfiltered dragonfly shot. Relatively speaking there is a very small amount of UV in sunlight compared to IR. So because of the large amount of IR, we know that it will contaminate the Visible light to some extent (your bright leaves) and it will greatly contaminate UV light in this kind of unfiltered shot. It is very difficult to know whether any UV is actually contributing to the photo or not. It is really more of a VIS + IR shot.

 

Were you to photograph a flower with a known UV-dark bullseye using an unfiltered cam/lens, you would see very little of the dark bulleye in the shot. Bjørn has an example of this in his articles on his old website. Better still, make your own shots to prove this. ;)

 

A lot of the false coloration in an unfiltered shot like this is dependent on the underlying White Balance setting being used in the camera. Incandescent (tungsten) works very nicely for colourful unfiltered shots. If you do an in-camera white balance and shoot unfiltered it can look fairly washed out. Of course, given that there is no "true" colour for such an unfiltered shot, you are free to beef up the colours in the editor if you want make that artistic choice.

 

Oh, yes. I am very well aware of the predominance of IR in broad-spectrum (unfiltered) light. Roughly about a maximum of 3% of total light being composed of UV (with sun at zenith, and subject at equator, at sea level, under 25% atmospheric humidity, to be exact). And when altitudes exceed the troposphere, (variably about 10 to 20km high, where much of our "weather" and "moisture" resides), UV percentage of total sunlight can exceed about 3.5%. And above the stratospheric line, where "ozone" tapers off, even higher concentrations, still (nearly doubled, about 5.2% average), as well as a gradual rise in X-ray radiation as well.

 

But, of course, in most real-world (non-maximally ideal) shooting conditions, usually the averages vary between 2.3% to 1.8% of available UV in relation to total light, on any given sunny day. I know these rough figures, only because I've studied spectrography and electromagnetism / radiation, as a component of astronomy / astrophysics. :P

 

Therefore, my "hunch" about possible UV passing into this broad-spectrum photo was TRULY based on a subtle "color sense" of this photo, compared to all of my other full-spectrum-converted cameras, shooting in the same conditions (white balances remaining equal). I can detect VERY subtle shifts in coloration. Not saying that my hunch is correct, of course ... but it IS a hunch.

 

I suppose the truth will be revealed, one way or the other, once I do some UV-only testing. Fingers crossed.

[nfoto]

At high latitudes, even less UV is present as you probably are well aware of. So getting the maximum of what little UV exists past the filter becomes paramount. Concomitantly, getting rid of the IR contamination is not an easy task which only the very few best filters can handle.

 

Ideally one should always test one's setup against a subject with known UV appearance.

[igoriginal]

Indeed, Fierce Bear.

 

At higher latitudes, UV-only work becomes increasingly challenging. Especially during the winter months, where the sun is closest to the horizon, and hence the UV has to work its way past a thicker slice of atmosphere.

 

Which makes me wonder: Do you find yourself trying to implement UV-capable xenon flash tubes in COMBINATION with available sunlight, outdoors, in order to "blend" in better UV coverage?

 

I always wondered if OUTDOOR use of Xenon flash tubes can help make up for UV drop-off at higher latitudes ... however cumbersome that may be.

[igoriginal]

@ Desert Dancer,

 

Thank you for the kind words, concerning my photo, by the way! Gratefully appreciated!

 

I will keep all of you posted, on testing all of these compact / point & shoot models for UV transmission. I probably should harbor a healthy level of skepticism, though. Since finding even an old PRIME lens with useful UV transmission is a stab in the dark, as it is, and quite a challenging hunt with infrequent moments of success among the vast crowd of many lenses that prove to be a no-go. Even LESS chance of finding that needle in a haystack, when it comes to more modern zoom lens designs on compact cameras.

 

Guess I have my work cut out for me. But wouldn't it be quite a victory for us UV photographers, if such a compact / point-and-shoot camera exists!

[colinbm]

I've heard good things about Sigma's Foveon. I've considered purchasing older (used, but well-cared for models), myself. At least as a second body, for experimentation.

 

How has having a Foveon-based system worked for you, in UV, compared to a Bayer sensor system? Is the white-balancing technique for obtaining "proper UV colors" on Foveon-based systems any different?

 

Hi Iggy

I haven't really experimented with Bayer CFA cameras.

I am having success with Custom WB with the Sigma DP compacts in 'full spectrum', particularly with a white teflon 'Spectraflect' coated surface, it seems to work well for full spectrum, UV & IR photography. The Sigma DP compacts are limited in their UV response, down to about 370nm.

Getting a Custom WB with the SD dSLR Sigma 'full spectrum' cameras is proving difficult. The Sigma SD15 dSLR, I can get a UV response down to the mercury emission line at 365nm. I am looking very seriously at getting a Sigma SD9 dSLR,s sensor glass replaced with quartz, either DIY or professionally done.

I have some examples on this forum.

Cheers

Col

[Andrea B.]

I'm so used to having to clean my broadband cameras after a shoot because of pollen or dust or whatever that the D600 splatters really never have bothered me all that much. And in time it lessened so I never did send it in for whatever the "fix" was.

 

The D800E is the highest dynamic range camera on the market currently, but it has a horrible Live View implementation (which I find immensely useful for UV shooting) so I never did get one converted. The D600 and K5 suffice for now.

[Andrea B.]

Nico, go to Schott's Download Library at this link: http://www.us.schott...load/index.html

There you will see a drop-down menu from which you should select "More Downloads".

You will then see a checkbox list containing the "Optical Filter Glass Calculation Program US".

Click the orange Download button to complete the download of a Zip file containing the program.

The program is in the form of an Excel spreadsheet, so Excel will be needed to open and use it.

[igoriginal]

I'm so used to having to clean my broadband cameras after a shoot because of pollen or dust or whatever that the D600 splatters really never have bothered me all that much. And in time it lessened so I never did send it in for whatever the "fix" was.

 

Yes. I suppose it depends on what you are comfortable with.

 

I, for one, could never feel comfortable with lubricant on my sensor. Dust and pollen is ONE thing (it can be POWER-BLOWN off, without actually touching the sensor ... since dust and pollen are DRY particulates). Grease, on the other hand, can act like a weak glue or solvent and possibly lead to damage over time ... destroying coatings or other sensitive chemistry. It's something I would be uncomfortable with having to constantly wipe off of my sensor, indefinitely. Who knows how certain lubricants can affect various parts ... parts which were never designed for constant contact with petroleum-based compounds. And it's even possible that lubricants that leak into certain parts of a shutter mechanism can wear it down faster, by causing it to work harder. It depends on the viscosity of the lubricant, of course, and what it was originally designed for. If it's too thick for the intended part, it MAY accelerate wear, rather than reduce wear.

 

But, regardless ... if Nikon has been doing a good job of fixing this issue, then there's no point in harping on it, of course. ;) Things happen in mass production, you know. Many unpredictable variables, in large-quantity manufacturing. It can happen to any company. In Nikon's case, I am glad that it was only confined to ONE type of model, though. I like Nikon a lot. I love their DSLRs. While Pentax comes first for me, Nikon has been a very close second.

 

The D800E is the highest dynamic range camera on the market currently, but it has a horrible Live View implementation (which I find immensely useful for UV shooting) so I never did get one converted. The D600 and K5 suffice for now.

 

However, as you've pointed out ... dynamic range is NOT everything.

 

Unless you are making GIANT prints (larger than 20x30"), no one is going to notice much of a difference in anything that you correct in RAW, in post-photo editing. I've seen a comparison of post-photo edited images of the same subject by two completely different cameras; a micro-4/3 system and a full-frame system ... and the photos were indistinguishable at "regular" sizes (provided that both photos were taken in RAW, and there was sufficient post-photo editing leeway of the image which was taken by the camera with less dynamic range).

 

To be sure, as long as an image is properly exposed, and no highlights or shadows were clipped / blown out, then the RAW manipulation of the image can squeeze out additional detail / dynamic range in post-photo editing.

 

It should also be brought up that many of the more recent models can shoot "HDR"-mode photographs, essentially extending their native dynamic range capability.

 

On the other hand, when it comes to UV-only work ... I feel that the ability to assess your overall image in full-time live-view is FAR more important than dynamic range. Especially when it comes to focusing and attaining the proper DOP (depth-of-field). Unlike dynamic range (which can be tweaked in RAW, in post-photo editing), a bad focus job CANNOT be fixed in post-photo editing. You cannot CHANGE your depth-of-field in post-photo work, AFTER the photo was taken. Nor can you re-focus something that was taken OUT of focus.

 

So, this is why a system that has more robust IN-CAMERA calibration of the image, in terms of "what you see is what you get" (full-time live-view through a mirrorless EVF system), is MORE important than dynamic range. At least, for me, anyway. :)

 

(But, hey ... everyone has different priorities, of course.)

 

Never mind, that full-frame gear has typically been more clunky, takes up more space, and becomes more unwieldy and cumbersome in the field ... especially when doing work in the great outdoors over greater distances and more extended periods. I have read of PLENTY of pro photographers that have sold their larger-format systems (and lenses) and moved to the MIRRORLESS systems ... with MUCH satisfaction. The mirrorless system is no longer just for weekend warriors, amateurs, and non-pros. It has evolved to the point where it is used by some serious semi-pros and pros, alike.

 

In fact, we are now seeing even full-frame cameras moving toward the direction of mirrorless designs, as well! It seems that the old mirror-box and slapping mirror is on its way out, and about to be taken out to pastures for the dinosaur that it is. EVF technology is QUICKLY reaching the level where it can COMPETE with the quality of optical-based viewfinders. And, of course, an EVF can display so much MORE information (including the entire MENU system), than an optical system ... which means that the photographer can keep their eyes on the viewfinder at all times (rather than having to switch to the LCD screen in order to make adjustments to other parameters). :P

 

It is my strong opinion that MIRRORLESS, EVF-based systems are the next major evolution of the camera, and it will eventually overtake all platforms and sensor formats. Watch and see.

[nfoto]

Time will show. Current EVF, no matter how refined, still has a long way to go. Size can be an advantage and having a larger camera tends to be beneficial in a lot of situations. Having a bigger format has shown itself to give better results also in the arena of UV photography. Thus my appreciation is not automatically for the smaller sized systems. Remember there is a physical constraint not easily removed, and that is the size of your hand(s).

 

I do shoot mirrorless and DSLRs side by side so am very familiar with benefits and drawbacks of either system.

 

Agree that real-time view of the subject is important for accurate UV work. Whether this is achieved by optical and electronic means is immaterial. I have systems using either method. It's the final outcome that counts.

 

I recommend moving over to say fotozones.com or similar site for additional discussion on camera systems on a general level not related to UV. Let us keep the focus on UV here.

[Andrea B.]

Personally I don't give a fig how my camera is constructed or what size the sensor is as long as it can capture the UV goods with the highest Image Quality. And has a reasonably tough build.

 

Sticky pollen is every bit as bad as lubricant. I had to pour in a light film of methanol after the Desert Safari I and let it sit for awhile to soak off the desert pollen and grit. UV shooting does have its problems.

 

Did I mention the story about the tripod falling over in soft desert dust dumping the UV-Nikkor face-first? And then there was the time that my D300 rolled out the back of the SUV, bounced in the ditch and landed - thankfully - again in a huge pile of dust. It could have landed on rocks! Everything survived because they make Nikon gear pretty tough. Unforch, Bjørn's Lumix suffered a mount warp on that trip. Hard sometimes to use heavier lenses on those small cams. Best to go for a pro build for in situ shooting as we must do with many UV botanicals. We have a thousand other such stories between the two of us. But we bring home the bacon, so it's all good. ;) :P :)

 

My Pentax K5 appears to be sturdy too. And Dave O here is also shooting with a Pentax K5 (I think).

 

Igor, do go visit fotozones.com. It is a beginning site which has gathered lots of steam. There is lots of great talk about mirrorless and lots of good debate as well as many excellent photographs. We have know many of the folks there from Nikongear. They are an interesting, diverse, international bunch. Gear talk is encouraged there. We do not suppress it here, but neither do we encourage it - just so we can focus on the photography aspect of UV which is not discussed much elsewhere. I'm a member on fotozones.com because of my nifty little Pentax Q which I love, love, love.

 

{BTW, Igor, stating the obvious is somewhat tedious !!!!!!!!!!!! :P :P :P You cannot CHANGE your depth-of-field in post-photo work, AFTER the photo was taken. Nor can you re-focus something that was taken OUT of focus.}

[igoriginal]

I recommend moving over to say fotozones.com or similar site for additional discussion on camera systems on a general level not related to UV. Let us keep the focus on UV here.

 

Agreed. I believe we all understand the variables of photography in general, regardless of system, and need not press on.

 

Personally I don't give a fig how my camera is constructed or what size the sensor is as long as it can capture the UV goods with the highest Image Quality. And has a reasonably tough build.

 

Indeed. And all within each person's capabilities and personal preferences, of course. Like I said: Apples to oranges. A tool is a tool. It's the final result that matters most.

[igoriginal]

Did I mention the story about the tripod falling over in soft desert dust dumping the UV-Nikkor face-first? And then there was the time that my D300 rolled out the back of the SUV, bounced in the ditch and landed - thankfully - again in a huge pile of dust. It could have landed on rocks! Everything survived because they make Nikon gear pretty tough. Unforch, Bjørn's Lumix suffered a mount warp on that trip. Hard sometimes to use heavier lenses on those small cams. Best to go for a pro build for in situ shooting as we must do with many UV botanicals. We have a thousand other such stories between the two of us. But we bring home the bacon, so it's all good.

 

There's no doubt about it. As you've so correctly pointed out ... UV work is not an easy field, nor is it ever cheap, whichever direction of technique one follows. However, what constitutes a "pro build" is a variable statement, all its own. Sometimes a HEAVIER "pro" camera can actually LEAD to its demise, because of its own heft ... whereas a "less rugged" but LIGHTER camera can actually better survive a certain type of fall, in spite of it being "non-pro." Like I said, many variables of physics .... hence, not worth splitting hairs over, right?

 

My Pentax K5 appears to be sturdy too. And Dave O here is also shooting with a Pentax K5 (I think).

 

The K-5 / K-5 II / K-5 II(s) series cameras are actually MORE rugged than their Nikon D7000 / D7100 counterparts, because they have not only been manufactured to be weather-sealed, but even FREEZE (ice) proof, down to -10 degrees celcius. So, this is a very novel thing. Now, whether this claim has been lab-tested to accuracy by an independent testing body, I am not certain.

 

But, regardless, as already stated by Fierce Bear and yourself, I agree that we should stay on track and go back to UV-related discussions.

[igoriginal]

Gear talk is encouraged there. We do not suppress it here, but neither do we encourage it - just so we can focus on the photography aspect of UV which is not discussed much elsewhere.

 

Alas, though, you were the one who first brought up the discussion of dynamic range capabilities, across various camera models, not me. :P

 

{BTW, Igor, stating the obvious is somewhat tedious !!!!!!!!!!!! ;) :P :)You cannot CHANGE your depth-of-field in post-photo work, AFTER the photo was taken. Nor can you re-focus something that was taken OUT of focus.}

 

All too true. But I didn't bring it up because I suspected that it wasn't obvious. I brought it up as an illustration (EXAMPLE) for why there are other aspects of UV PHOTOGRAPHY (getting the focusing right) which is MORE important than the differences in dynamic ranges of various camera models.

 

Lest you forget, that you have brought up some pretty obvious things, too. (Ex: "There is very little available UV in full-spectrum light"). That's quite obvious, to someone who is a UV photographer, given the mandatory requirement of having to use specialized filters to squeeze out what little UV there is.

 

But, yes. We should stay on topic and on-subject. I agree. Thank you all, once again, for such an engaging discussion! Much appreciated!

[igoriginal]

... my nifty little Pentax Q which I love, love, love.

 

Speaking of which, has anyone ever tried to full-spectrum-convert one of those mirrorless cameras from the 'Nikon 1' ('V1' and 'J1') series models?

 

I was very curious how they would fair, with UV photography ... given that I have brought up the idea of having a secondary *COMPACT* camera for UV-photography, on hand at all times.

 

After all, if you full-spectrum-convert a COMPACT interchangeable-lens camera like a 'Pentax Q' or 'Nikon 1', and then just slap on a uv-capable PANCAKE lens (like a Spiratone Macrotar lens, which displays some UV transmission), then NOW you have that COMPACT that you were thinking about for UV work, no?

 

(And, of course, me discovering the Wollensak Velostigmat 1" (25mm) F/1.5 Cine lens as being UV-capable would mean that it would pair up quite PERFECTLY with a full-spectrum-converted 'Pentax Q' or 'Nikon 1' system, given this cine lens's small size! Not only that, but with it having a filter-threading diameter of only 25mm, then getting a UV-pass filter cut in such a reduced filter size would significantly keep costs down! Now THERE are some ideas!)