Review Fuji Finepix S3 Pro UVIR

[vivek iyer]

Wolfgang,

 

The 2.5cm f/4 W-Nikkor is a swell lens. I use it on LTM/Leica M bodies

(film of course).

 

It is the APS-C sensor that sucks.

 

The Fax-Nikkor 160mm f/5.6 lens is a wide angle design. It does a fabulous job on 4x5 film.

 

There are a whole host of other lenses that are suitable as well.

 

If you pry yourself away from the APS-C/digital gizmos, you will find that there are more possibilities.

[vivek iyer]

Joe, Thanks for clarifying the quote I pasted on the UG1 and UG11 transmissions.

 

As for your contention that the dichroics you use are the same as Baader U does not rule out the fact that these dichroic filters (or coatings) on UG11 (in a Baader filter) are integrated.

 

This is beneficial in two aspects:

 

1. The Chemical and physical stability of the UG11 is preserved (the uncoated ones are prone to deterioration due to moisture/air and gradually lose their transmission in the UV region and also become more brittle).

 

2. Number of reflective surfaces are minimised.

 

One other thing, there are more BG filters than the commonly discussed BG-38, 39 and 40. Each with different characteristics of its own. So, I wouldn't dismiss the IR cut ability (while keeping UV transmissivity)of these colored glass filters. Schott (and Hoya)continues to make different (newer, "better") cyan filters.

 

It is also worthwhile to keep in mind that "normal" glass (with low UV transmission) becomes an UV transmitting (as good as an UG11 or U340) but visible blocking filter due to the metal ions incorporated in it.

 

I can't seem to find the pdf file that floats on the web (I think, I sent the link to Akira- if you have it, please post a link here). This is a chapter on astronomy filters. It briefly describes how these filters are made, what their properties are and how to combine various filters to cut off IR or other wavelengths. I am sure I have a hard copy of it somewhere.

 

Cheers!

[vivek iyer]

" And yes... I own a Nikkor 20mm UD f/3.5 which is like new and I am willing to send it to nikon. I talked with them today already, and they told me that they can remove the front lens. And I also found a glass factory near my city which would help me with the removal from the coating from the lens element."

 

Wolgang, First thing you need to check is the contruction of this lens. 11 elements, lots of glass. Its coating (front) is barely visible and it is not clear if it is a UV blocking coating. Besides, what about the coatings (if any) that are on the inner elements? Do you plan to dismantle the entire lens, de-coat everything and put it back together?

 

As is the sample I have (crystal clear glass)is prone to flare of many kinds. I can't imagine getting any useful images out of this lens without its coatings. So, I would drop that idea.

[vivek iyer]

I hate it when there is a typo in the name. It is Wolfgang. Sorry.

[roland_vink]

<i>You need a simple wide-angle construction with as few elements as possible, and in particular, elements should not be bonded since the bonding substance may severely attenuate UV light.</i>

<p>

I assume also the lenses should not be multicoated.

Single coated lenses with simple designs and no cemented optic include:

<ul>

<li>Nikkor-H 28/3.5 - 6 elements

<li>PC-Nikkor 35/3.5 - 6 elements (similar configuration to 28/3.5)

<li>Nikkor-T 10.5cm/4 - 3 elements

<li>Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 - 4 elements

<li>Nikkor-Q 200/4 - 4 elements

<li>Medical Nikkor 200/5.6 - 4 elements (same as Nikkor-Q 200/4)

<li>Nikkor-P 300/4.5 - 5 elements

<li>Nikkor-Q 400/4.5 - 4 elements (requires focusing unit)

<li>Nikkor-P 800/8 - 5 elements (requires focusing unit)

<li>Nikkor-P 1200/11 - 5 elements (requires focusing unit)

<li>Series-E 28/2.8 - 5 elements (chrome ring version may be multicoated)

<li>Series-E 35/2.5 - 5 elements

<li>Series-E 100/2.8 - 4 elements

<li>UV-Nikkor 55/4 - 3 elements (assuming this exists)

<li>UV-Nikkor 105/4.5 - 6 elements

<li>Lensbaby 1.0 - 1 element!! (could give you some interesting effects)

</ul>

Most of these are rather old optics and will need to be AI modified to work with modern cameras. Most likely they aren't so sharp either and the telephotos will probably suffer from CA, but they are the most likely contenders for good IR and UV response in the Nikon lineup. I have NO experience with this type of photography, just thought it might be a useful starting point for you.

[w.a._steiner]

"Wolfgang, First thing you need to check is the contruction of this lens. 11 elements, lots of glass. Its coating (front) is barely visible and it is not clear if it is a UV blocking coating. Besides, what about the coatings (if any) that are on the inner elements? Do you plan to dismantle the entire lens, de-coat everything and put it back together?"

 

Vivek,

I got your point but to know that the only "good" wide angle lens for UV photography should be the series E 35mm nikkor is really dissatisfying. Since it as just a 53mm lens on my Fuji I cant do my stuff.

 

No, I dont want to dismantle all the elements, just the front element, but that was also my question. Is every single inner lens coated or just the front element? I remember that Bjorn wrote something about the single coarting of this lens. Did he mean that every one from the inner lens is single coated? Maybe I just understand something wrong?

 

Maybe it would be aslo an interesting experiment to dismantle the Series E 35 and 100mm Nikkor, de-coat them and try the optical performance?

 

Wolfgang

[vivek iyer]

Wolfgang, I know this is not going to be helpful but I will say it again,

 

the APS-C sensor size sucks.

[w.a._steiner]

The english version of my review from the Fuji Finepix S3 Pro UVIR is now online:

http://www.wolfgangsteiner.com/blog-do-show-blogid-8.html

 

Everyone is hereby sincerly invited to post comments or just ask me some questions at my new Blog on my homepage. No need to register, just read and write.

 

Regards

 

Wolfgang

[vivek iyer]

<i>or at the very least most public about their experience</i>

<p>

Peter, Thanks for the kind words and that qualification that I quote.

<p>

You are right about that qualification because one of my friends Mr. Wojciech Secomski (AFAIK, doesn't not post anywhere) is a person of very deep interest, knowledge and experience. I am eternally grateful to him for many free exchanges.

[vivek iyer]

This is the chapter I referred to in my earlier post. This used to be accessible for free but not anymore:

 

http://eaa.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=eaa%2F4404%40eaa%2Dxml&qt=filters

 

From "Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics", Filters by Michael Bessel.

[vivek iyer]

Michael Bessell (not not with one l).

[w.a._steiner]

"There are also many frauds, wannabees, or well intentioned amateurs publishing disinformation."

 

Publishing disinformation sounds sweet to me. Maybe I should better shut up and go back to my hole, there are so many great pros outside already, right? No space for someone new any more....???

 

Woowww, always good to get great and really helpful informations like that. Much better then my published disinformation.

[w.a._steiner]

Peter,

 

please dont get me wrong, but what could be more directed to me then starting a sentence with my name..??? The best is we forget about it and leave it like it is. Only Bjorn and Vivek are the professionals and there is nothing more to explore in UV, right?

 

Thanks for you kind help guys.

 

Best regards

 

Wolfgang

[vivek iyer]

Wolfgang, It seems like a language problem to me. I do not see Peter's original post as an offence to you.

 

This reflected UV subject is a really an esoteric one. Extraordinarily challenging, expensive, time consuming, frustrating, etc.

 

There have been dabblers of this type of photography over many many decades. Only two individuals (IMO) stand out to be too passionate and persistent to make it to be more than just occasional dabbling:

Fumio Yokozawa (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/photo/uv.index.htm/ultraviolet.htm) and Bjoern Rorslett.

 

For me, it was not easy either. I too was fascinated by Bjoern's spectacular Dandelion shots and struggled to reproduce it for years (yes, not months but years). A lucky find of an UV-Planar 60mm f/4 lens made a break. This shot (http://www.photo.net/photo/2394860) was one of my early successes. Then came the problems with lighting, getting the right flash, etc and then the problems about filters. I now have something like 40+ bandpass filters of all makes, sizes and thickness, half a dozen flashes, about a dozen lenses that are truly UV capable, including an UV-Nikkor formerly owned by Mr. Yokozawa himself.

 

I do not consider myself to be an expert or the "best". If/when I feel that way, that will be the end of my fascination with reflected UV photography.

 

Just a few weeks ago, when I talked to Mr. Rorslett, he was telling me how difficult it is to explain to others that this is one tough/challenging area of photography. Now, Bjoern does not think it is "easy" because he really knows that from his vast experience. He was not saying that to sound humble.

 

He said that because it is a fact.

 

I hope you will keep your interest, Wolfgang and I wish you the very best.

[w.a._steiner]

@ Peter Pawlyschyn, Vivek Iyer,

 

after "re-reading" your posts I understand now that you are absolut right. Sorry about my misinterpretation.

 

W. Steiner

[akira]

Hi, Wolfgang,

 

As other experts already pointed out, the Nikkor UD 20/3.5 should not be suitable for UV. I owend one. Although it was quite usable for IR, the glass itself had yellow tinge (owing to early high-index glass, I suppose) and I thought this tinge works for cutting the UV and never tried to use it for UV. I don't have 72mm filter either.

 

For landscape, you may be forced to settle on the series E 35mm or 28mm. I had both Ser. E 35mm and 28mm and am sure that the 35mm gives you better image in terms of quality, but I sold the 35mm and kept the 28mm because of the same reason you described. 28mm is just a semi-wideangle lens on DX-sized RSLRs but you should live with it. Stacking U-360 and BG 40 (both in 52mm filter thread) on 28mm causes no vignetting.

 

You should not try to remove coatings of "all" the elements of 28mm. A brave friend of mine did this and reported that the naked lens flares signifigcantly.

 

I think Ser. E 28mm is worth keeping because it works, of course, as true wideangle when used on film cameras. I used the lens this way, too. With film, you don't need any BG filter and a single UV transmitting filter causes no vignetting.

[w.a._steiner]

Hi Akira,

 

I agree with you. I got an Series E 35mm already and will try working with it after I got the filters from you ;-)

 

By the way.. did you get my emails?

 

Best Regards

 

Wolfgang

[bjørn rørslett]

I've got my S3 Pro UVIR today and testing has commenced. While the camera is a competent performer, no doubt about that, it doesn't constitute the panacea of UV and IR imaging. In fact, its UV sensitivity is about the same as my D200 [modified for UV] and about 1 stop better than the plain off-shelves D70. Its IR response is again much better than the non-modified D70, hardly surprising, but so far it seems to have about the same IR response as the IR-modified D70. So you won't gain greatly increased sensitivity in any range of the non-visible spectrum compared to existing solutions. But there is undeniable appeal in purchasing a camera which is accompanied by stern warnings about the danger of UV light! And the claimed high dynamic range of the S3 would come in handy in particular for IR shooting. So would the Live Preview if I manage to find out how it is activated :)

 

I'll continue my test shooting for a couple of days before I publish my findings in a review on my site.

[w.a._steiner]

Hi Bjorn,

 

today I got my Baader U-filter and I made some "pure" UV-A shots.

 

http://www.wolfgangsteiner.com/blog-do-show-blogid-12.html

 

Interesting is, that the Fuji is so sensitive in UV that you can shot with nearly every lens. Perfect results with the Series E 35mm, the 100mm, and also the 35mm f/1.4 AiS gives good results with this cam. Not nessesary to use any specialized lens with this camera.

 

Regards

 

Wolfgang

[bjørn rørslett]

The tremendous excellence of the 63mm f/3.5 has been a well-kept secret which you now have discovered.

 

For your other statements, I respectfully beg to disagree. The S3 UVIR hasn't that great UV sensitivity and IR contamination is still a great problem. If a purported "UV" image shows deciduous foliage with high reflectance, then that in fact means IR *is* involved. Foliage in UV is rendered *dark* except when specular reflectance is involved. I have done thousands of UV shots with film and digital so should know.

 

For flower photography in UV with the S3 UVIR/UV-Nikkor/Baader "Venus" and SB-140, I get perfect shots at f/16, 1/125 sec @800 ISO. That is about 2/3 stop improvement over my D70, but more or less the same exposure as with the D200 [uV-modified]. So the S3 is not very special in its UV response, unfortunately (I do wish it was better given the hype from Fujifilm USA about this camera, but facts are facts).

 

Be aware that even the Baader filter leaks in the border spectral range between UV-A and deep blue/purple.

 

As a general statement that you can get a UV image with many lenses not only the exotic UV-Nikkor and similar, that is true in a trivial sense. You can record something, but it may or may not be only UV, and image quality tends to be worse the better you are able to keep IR and visible light contamination at bay. Not very surprising given that the optics probably never were intended to cope with the UV(-A) range.

 

To ascertain that you have good UV imaging, a control subject with *known* UV patterns must be shot.

[w.a._steiner]

Sorry Bjorn but I can�t understand what you were talking. We are using the most specialized filter already (Baader U-filter)and you want to tell me now, after I got some really nice shots that it leaks in deep purple? Must be a bad joke or what?So the manufactor posted a fake transmisson curve or what?

 

Its really not nessesary to make some control shoot to show you that I can get true UV images. Its enough to do it. I dont like flowers and/or insects.

 

And you are wrong about the IR contamination either because the camera is not able to record something above 1000nm and everything under 1500nm is well blocked from this filter.

 

Why cant you except that there is something after a Nikon D70 plus you UV-Nikkor? You said you got your Fuji already so you should know it better.

 

Regards

 

Wolfgang

[vivek iyer]

Hi Wolfgang,

 

Sorry, my German is not top notch to translate Bjoern's entire post (perhaps, Akira can help?).

 

viel Glueck!

[bjørn rørslett]

Sorry if you feel offended, but there is no way through the UV/IR jungle unless you follow a methodic approach. What I try to tell is that putting filters in front of the lens is not enough, you need to get hard evidence that you really get what you claim. That is the content of what I stated and of course I stand by it.

 

Rethink the situation a little. Even if a filter attenuates 10 stops or more outside its passband, you could still end up getting a record of that spectral range instead of the intended "window" for the bandpass. Why is that? First, consider UV of natural light in itself is at least 4 stops lower intensity than the near-IR (<3% UV of the incident from the Sun compared to > 40% IR, the fraction of UV will however be variable with geographical location). Add to that the UV attenuation of the lens and you might lose a total of 8 stops or more compared to the IR which will pass almost unhindered through the same lens.

 

Your final remarks are unfriendly, condescending, and not warranted by anything I have contributed in this thread. I have shared hard-won experiences only. And yes, I do have my own S3 UVIR, and yes, I have carefully calibrated it against known targets.

[bjørn rørslett]

I see Vivek managed to post before I had completed my answer to Wolfgang. So add the following to the introduction of my post "Hi Wolfgang, ...." to avoid any confusion as to whom I answered.

 

This will be my last contribution here, by the way.

[w.a._steiner]

Good morning,

 

thanks Vivek, but its not nessesary to translate it, even my english is not good I can get the meaning of the words after translating some of them in Leo ;)

 

Bjorn,

 

first let me say that I am not unfriendly just courius about your words. You might be right with what you are saying, but the question is... does it make any sense to go so far?

 

Sure you know how to avoid *IR* contamination and all the visible light, but if the rest (pure UV-A wavrlength) is useless for pictorial photography its not interesting for me as an photographer.

 

Did you ever think about that most of the "IR" photographers use the R72 Filter from Hoya which lets a big amount of visible light pass? Thats also the reason why most of the good IR pics can be converted to false color pictures. If there would be no tint of red or blue inside our pics it would not be possible to mix something in photoshop afterwards. So if we translate your idea of true infrared photography (800nm-1000nm) no one ever made any "pure" IR pics, right?

 

Maybe you will still have some IR contamination when the cap is on in front of the lens... who knows? (Just joking). What I try to tell you is that the result is much more importend then the way you will get it. No one asks me if there where a 15% deep purple contamination inside my UV pic if the result is great. But because I havent seen only 1 good "true" UV landscape picture until now I dont understand why I should go any further to match with you in this very small part of photography. I am happy that I got all the information from your homepage and I am really not interested to get any better. I have my toy now and I want to produce great pictures, thats all.

 

I believe that we are just a couple of crazy guys and there is so much space for us on this earth. So,... dont be angry, you are still the best in ultraviolett Bjorn. I respect what you are doing, and I can remember that he had some nice discussions on the phone befor. If you think that I am unfriendly is was my bad english and I am sorry about it. The meaning should be a bit sarcastic but my intention was never to offend you/ or someone.

 

On the other side I am little bit astonished that every time when I reach the next level someone comes and tells me what is wrong again... why nobody try to tell all of us how this mystical thing works? How many filter should I screw in front of my lens until I am able to say.... I did real UV Photography?

 

Mr. Akira Sakamoto was so nice to send me an email and told me that he will try to find some of the BG-40 and U-360 in 52mm for me. Would that work Bjorn? I mean the combination of the BG-40 2mm thick plus the baader U-filter? Or is it still not pure enough for your meaning? I really dont know any more what to do, sorry.

 

Have a nice day

 

Wolfgang