|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-13-2021, 10:54 PM
|
| |
My old photogenic powerlight 750 studio monolight strobes do give off some UV light.
So with the Pentax Q10 (and keeping in mind with the native lens, it's a leaf shutter, so shutter speed has very little impact on exposure here), I've tried a UV shot of one of my fountain pens, and an IR shot.
This is a Pelikan M640 Special Edition Mount Everest fountain pen, 18K gold nib, and has a sort of metal barrel with plastic grip, piston knob, cap and what not. While the barrel does look textured with the gold etching (it's a topographical map of Mount Everest), there is a clear coat of some sort of acrylic on the outside, leaving the barrel smooth to the touch.
For reference this is two visible light shots (shot a few years ago on the old Olympus E-P3 and an Oly 45mm f/1.8)
Then with the Pentax Q10, with just the IR cut filter removed (no glass put back in its place), using the 01 Prime lens. Both shots are done at 1/250th shutter, f/3.2 aperture, ISO 100 on the IR shot, and ISO 200 on the UV shot.
On the UV shot, the strobe was pointed directly at the pen from 3 feet away, full power. On the IR shot, since the camera was waaaaay more sensitive to IR (but more likely the strobe gave off way more IR light than UV), I had to drop it down to 1/4 power, point it up at the ceiling to bounce, and place a sheet of paper above the pen to further diffuse/darken the light.
The IR shot is using a Schott RG850 longpass (850nm+ deep infrared) filter in front, and the UV shot done with a LUV U II (UVA-only from about 320nm to 395nm with 360nm peak), both of which I got from uviroptics on ebay.
As you can see the clear coat on the pen blocks some UV light, but passes IR (and visible) light quite easily.
Also regarding exposure and difficulty lighting, with my conversation with Steve (uviroptics), photographing with UV light is a "dark world" as he says. Long exposure or specialized lighting is pretty much to be expected. Also from other sources (such as collective on UV photography forums, and other sources), it's said that nearly all consumer digital cameras, regardless of conversion method or even just naked sensors, can't see below 300nm, so any UV they do typically see is strictly UVA, there's some very narrow examples of UVB I saw out there, and extremely limited stuff for UVC out there (the world is pretty much pitch black below 280nm).
---------- Post added 06-14-2021 at 02:22 AM ----------
Btw this is a fireworks video shot with the Q10, no filter in front, just the 01 Prime. Can see quite of bit of the internal reflection.
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sakRV67MxYs?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-13-2021, 06:28 PM
|
| |
Guess it depends on how powerful the flash is, and most of what is in that picture appears to be the florescent effect of things containing phosphor rather than UV itself.
I have a 365nm and 395nm LED flashlights and even those putting out a lot more seem to still require a higher ISO than usual.
Even using my studio strobe does put out some residual UV light, but it has to shoot full blast (it's an older 750W strobe) just to get moderate exposure around ISO 200.
Chances are that even with modification to a strobe, the visible light spectrum is still going to overpower the UV side by a great margin, which is somewhat what happened with the Schott BG3 (UV+IR, but lets in some residual visible light around 400-450nm), but if you have materials that fluoresce, pick up a 365nm LED flashlight for the most impact (most UV flashlights are the more common 395nm ones that will exhibit more purple visible light and more subtle fluorescing effect).
The second post in that thread is useful as it goes into explaining UV lighting sources, and how you still need to have some kind of UV-Pass, Visible light blocking on the lens side.
And as stated a couple times there, UV emission especially strong UVB/UVA is harmful to the eyes.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-10-2021, 05:18 PM
|
| |
Looking into it some more, seems like on the UV side it gets a bit difficult, because the glass itself can easily filter/block it out. This thread I found, was using special quartz flourite lens with an UV enhanced xenon flash.
He's using the same filter I have.
A new UV transmitting filter: LUV U-2 | Mu-43 |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-10-2021, 04:47 PM
|
| |
Though I'm not as sure anymore.
I picked up a LUV U II filter (made by uviroptics on ebay), which is a SCHOTT UG11 UV Bandpass filter stacked with a S8612 glass (IR and Visible suppression) designed to show only UV light (approximately 320nm to 395nm, peak around 360nm).
It's rather slow, so this shot of some black-eyed susans (they have yellow petals) in full on sunlight was 1/15th shutter, f/1.9, ISO 800.
Given that this is pure UV, full sun, and higher ISO, but no cast of any kind.
I'm also wondering if the lens itself has any coating that naturally blocks or filters out some UV, though I tried a 1951 Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 just for exposure and seems to be about the same.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-07-2021, 11:24 PM
|
| |
Did some long exposure testing (I didn't exactly prioritize perfect focus) to see how sensitive it was to the night sky in an apartment parking lot that has a bit of light pollution from the sides etc.
Attachment 534102
There was a consistent flare that was always there, I thought maybe it was the dust removal ribbon cable that I left intact, so snipped that and tucked it, still persisted.
Then I figured, based on my experience with my IR modified Olympus, it was probably the native lens as they're usually designed to filter UV or have anti-glare coating on the back sometimes. So I put my old Pentax-M 50/1.4 on it with a cheap mechanical 'dumb' adapter. Which as you know only allows for 2" max, so I also cranked the ISO up to 1600 to see if I could get the flare. Turns out it's the native Standard Prime 01 lens, the flare doesn't happen with my 1951 Canon 35/2.8 LTM or Pentax-M 50/1.4 lens. More than like I'll need that expensive PK to Q adapter to utilize anything past 2 seconds (and to have a leaf shutter).
Attachment 534103
Edit: The 06 Telephoto Zoom lens does not exhibit the flare.
Edit #2 : The 02 Standard does not exhibit it either, however it seems like inifnity focus is lost severely if you go any wider than 10mm (it's already pretty lost on all the native lens).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-02-2021, 05:41 AM
|
| |
The Urth seems more like marketing than anything (ie: pitching low carbon footprint to make, and a lot of coatings to make it resistant to cleaning). Also the Q10 is a CMOS sensor, not CCD.
It should still work, but so would a lot of other options.
Regarding the PKA adapter if you have the official Pentax one with the built in shutter, then you won't have as much limitations over a native lens. But if you just mean an adapter without any kind of electronic contact or built in leaf shutter, then there will be some limitations particularly in long exposure setting, and that it'll be purely electronic shutter (the native lens with electronic contacts have their own shutters and ND filters built in).
PS: Keep in mind it's best to shoot in raw mode (DNG) with this stuff, rather than rely on the jpeg to give you enough details to play with especially since you may have to pull colors here or there to get the best result.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-01-2021, 07:10 PM
|
| |
It's probably the easiest option, because otherwise you'd have to replace the hot mirror piece of glass with some other kind of glass.
The problem with going full spectrum though is you have to spend money for the filters in front of the lens, and some of the specialty filters such as UV/IR dual-bandpass or UV pass only (as opposed to the typical range of IR longpass filters) can cost $80 to $200 each depending (bout 75 to 120 average for the good filters in a 52mm thread size for me). The kind like B+W 092 (695nm+) or the Hoya R25 (or similarly B_W 091, that sits between a Hoya R25 Medium Red and R29 Deep Red) for that "Goldie" look on a full spectrum, or Hoya R72 etc are relatively inexpensive, but most other kinds not so much.
Also the nice thing about keeping it full spectrum is that under artificial light conditions (indoors, or at night on the street etc), most of the results appear relatively "normal" but with just better sensitivity without cranking up the ISO as much. In many cases I've noticed that there is very little UV or IR leaching from the lighting source to overpower the visual light source. But if say a store has a "night mode" style security camera, you'll definitely see the IR beam emitting from it like a floodlight.
Downside though when not using a filter at all, you'll notice a slight fuzzieness during daytime (where both UV, visible, and IR light is present heavily), as UV and IR are not quite focused on the same plane as visible light (hence the old red IR Index mark that you move your focus ring to after focusing visually, when using infrared film), so usually when you focus there's a bit of a halo-ing effect, hence why it's good to get one of those UV/IR cut filters to throw back on the lens if you need to have a 'normal' session with the camera.
I noticed that because it does that, autofocusing without any filters especially when not at close range can miss a bit, but when I'm using either the UV+IR , or IR filters in front, focusing is fine even at a distance.
Here's a couple more examples earlier tonight.
One about 7P about an hour and a half before sunset (shot thru car winshield), with the yellow fiolage, it's the UV+IR Schott BG3 filter in front. But with no filter at all in front (and white balance set to CTE) it has the darker bushes/trees (green normally).
Then there's one of the bridge about 10 minutes after sunset, with thunderclouds behind me while shooting, so a lot of the light of the sun off to my rear right was getting quickly dimmed by the incoming storm clouds. Still some infrared reflectivity off foliage but not as much UV going on it seems like. There's still a bit of softness in details when not narrowed down to one of the three visibility areas (ie: UV, IR, or Visible).
Filters I own in 52mm are Schott BG3 1.5mm (UV+IR Dual Bandpass), B+W 091 (580-ish?+) B+W 092 (695nm+), Schott RG850 2mm, Schott RG1000 2mm, Schott RG1000 2.5mm, I have an old Hoya R25 sitting around somewhere.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-01-2021, 12:54 PM
|
| |
Couple more earlier today.
Full spectrum (no filter in front) - Front yard of a house
UV+IR (Schott BG3) - Lake with people
And Deep IR (Schott RG1000) - Little creek
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-01-2021, 09:45 AM
|
| |
I stumbled across this after wanting to get a 'full spectrum' camera, as I already have an old Olympus E-M1 Mk1 that does Infrared from 590nm onward (equivalent of the "goldie" filter).
Then I wondered about my Q10 since I hardly use it now days as it's showing its age and what not, and saw this thread and found it easy enough to go ahead and do.
Well definitely works. I had an old Schott BG3 1.5mm filter sitting around that I never used because it had no benefit to my infrared camera which I already had 695nm, 720nm, 850nm, and 1,000nm filters laying around for, and none of the cameras I have could see UV... til now. The BG3 passes roughly all of UV-A and UV-B, and some of UV-C (100nm to 280nm), tiny bit spill from UV-A until drops completely at 500nm, picks up again around 720nm (near-infrared).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
01-27-2018, 12:18 AM
|
| |
Same deal here with a Q10, like the internal battery has exhausted (seems to be a frequent enough problem that it shows up in search), the only work around I found is to have the fresh battery ready to insert as soon as you pop out the other battery.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
12-09-2017, 11:56 PM
|
| |
I haven't been doing too much "serious" shooting with the Q10 over the last several months, mainly nice to have on hand for snaps that does way better job than my camera phone.
But at the first of the month, I wanted to leave most of my heavy gear locked up at school, and I took with me the Q10 + 06 and 01 lens, along with a tiny little tabletop tripod, as well as one of those Super clamps we use in the studio if I just wanted to mount the camera off a rail/etc, most of them around town were either too thick or positioned in a way that I couldn't compose, so it was mainly either handheld, or on the little targa tripod.
In chronological order from the start of the night at campus to the end at the blue bridge. The handheld shots usually at ISO 800 or less, whereas the tripoded ones I kept at ISO 100.
The first four are handheld, the last three are tripoded.
The last one is a panoramic stitching too (roughly 30Mpixels)
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-23-2017, 09:33 AM
|
| |
On the street I usually position myself alongside another barricade, such as a street sign, light pole, knee high barricades, etc. So anyone who gets all huffy about nearly running into me, would have run into the street sign, light pole, or barricade anyways and are just stupid for blaming anyone but themselves.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-22-2017, 11:47 AM
|
| |
It was a Pentax K10D. When I got a screen for that, it was some chinese generic off ebay that stated it was for that model. Otherwise before they closed down their business, Kat's eyes offered screens for various models.
---------- Post added 04-22-2017 at 02:52 PM ----------
Haven't had any kind of altercation like that on a trail, or too many places like that outdoors. I do remember when I was shooting at one of the Dirty Shows (#9 I think) over in Detroit, things can be a bit more aggressive, particularly from other photographers. Had one dude that kept throwing himself in my way so that he could get whatever shot I was setting up for and other general rude behaviors. Friend of mine who was there, knowing that I generally won't do anything came up behind him while he was squatting, acting all discoordinated and fell on him with his knee right into his back and then gives me one of those 'sly' winks.
That same guy that kept blocking my view seemed dumbfounded later when I was shooting the group I came with as I was up on stage on the sides, idiot didn't even know he was blocking the group's official photographer the whole time.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-20-2017, 12:27 PM
|
| |
My first Pentax DSLR (and the Canon 300D I had previously) had the luxury of being able to remove the focusing screen which could be swapped for one with a split/micro-prism.
On the digital side I don't really worry about it anymore since I only shoot mirrorless now. But it is the reason I sought out an older flagship SLR of sort when I got rid of all my AF pentax lens, and the MZ-6 was poorly suited for manual focus with just it's matte screen, and got an MX with the standard 02 screen.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-20-2017, 11:42 AM
|
| |
:P While I am a 36 year old student, because of my age and I guess my 'early greying' if you will, most people wouldn't even assume student, or have something entirely different in their mind. Like being on the sidewalk, at night, full on aluminum Bogen 3021 tripod, camera mounted clear as day, shutter release attached, and getting ready to take some shots of long exposure traffic coming down the highway (the sidewalk being on the overpass that's grated off). So not discrete in the least, it's very apparent I'm taking pictures. Also bear in mind I'm deaf (moderate to severe one side, severe to profound the other), so I'm not hearing the woman at the light coming off the highway yelling at me until she's honking her horn. "What are you doing!?" ... I'm taking pictures, "WHY!? Why are you Taking Pictures!?" ... I felt like saying "... because I can... ", but rather just saying "I'm a student" for whatever reason shuts them up.
One an experienced user might like... :D
Haven't gotten that one yet, since round here it seems obvious that it *exists* (but in their minds in an extremely limited capacity which may be true locally I guess), but I have had the retorts such as "Wouldn't digital give you a better quality?", they say that even when I'm out shooting with my Olympus E-M5, despite the tilt up LCD screen on the back, people on the street keep thinking it's a film body. The Peruvian walnut grip probably doesn't help.
:D Never had that, but I could see it happening. I have mentioned with some lens I have to manually focus but that I prefer such and such lens over some of the native ones on my digitals. The usual responses if they are into photography as well is "I can't handle manual focus, nothing comes out right". Which is pretty obvious when you consider 99.99% of the DSLR cameras made now days have focusing screens intended primarily for AF usage. None of that split/micro prism goodness, and usually a pentamirror unless you're lucky enough to get a model with an actual prism.
Never had that one either, but usually when I can, I like to shoot from the waist, so most of the time people don't notice. I usually prefer that people keep on walking, not stopping and asking me for the millionth time if they're going to get in the way. It's like walk as normal, I'll time myself around you.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-19-2017, 10:18 AM
|
| |
You speak as if that is gone or even close to being gone. ;p
That doesn't seem to be as nearly an alien concept to some people as opposed to a stand alone light meter. (which in some situations does better than ttl) ;p
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-15-2017, 12:33 AM
|
| |
Though to be equally pedantic, that doesn't mean the IR cut filter was changed. Sensitivity could still be the same as that is mostly obstructed by the glass in front of the sensor, and not the sensor itself.
I wonder why none of the conversion companies can do a Q~Q-S1. They do convert plenty of 1/2.3" point and shoots.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-12-2017, 10:33 PM
|
| |
I would think the Q would give nearly identical results as my Q10. Since they share the same sensor I thought.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
04-12-2017, 09:36 PM
|
| |
That's what I'm thinking, just wanted to makes sure that said capacitor doesn't impact anything else aside from the date/time when the battery is pulled.
And it was about 125 for the Q10 with a 02 lens and extras (jjc hood, case, extra battery etc). If it's as you said, I would sooner pick up a Q7 than have it repaired.(though I still want to get a Q7 regardless).
:P Not quick enough for me. Though maybe I should try powering on the camera first, then off, and then quick swap if it even makes a difference :D
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
04-12-2017, 08:32 PM
|
| |
So it seems that when I change the battery on my Pentax Q10 (the one being taken out still holding at least half a charge as it can still snap away just fine), and put in the new fresh battery not even 2 seconds apart, it wants me to input the current date time.
Initially when I got this camera last month used from a seller over on Mu-43, it would do that but only if I didn't put the new battery in within a few minutes, now it's like instantly.
Not a huge deal for me to re-input the time, and it seems to keep all my other settings such as the last shooting mode information (I'm guessing stored in solid state rom of sort), so I'm wondering if the internal non-user accessible battery is any cause for alarm to other functions of the camera.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-12-2017, 08:09 PM
|
| |
Finally got a sunny day in. Also had Ilford SFX in the MX and some Arista Edu Ultra 200 (which some on apug claim could do infrared when metered at iso 6) in my Russian Fed-2A that needed to get shot up. Used a 1951 Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 on that and the Pentax-M 50mm f/1.4 on the MX for the purpose of my outing (switching to some Kodak 3302 ortho film after the SFX was shot up and used that unfiltered at ISO 6)
So it seems Arista edu ultra 200 is non responsive to a B+W 092 (which allows more visible light than the hoya r72), all the frames I shot metered for iso 6 and bracket under a stop and up to 3 stops over exposed came out blank. But the B+W 090 (light red) do show up as do the unfiltered.
The SFX roll came out with every frame showing content (no surprises there ;p), though a tad on the dense side when metered for iso 10 (filter factor 20~40 taken into account) with an over and under bracketing.
Will print a contact sheet tomorrow, was at the campus well past closing getting rolls developed since I spent most of the time doing snip testing of Kodak 3302 ortho film to come up with a Dev time of 10 minutes for hc-110 dilution H (1:63) which was shot for iso 6, seems like my over +1 bracket is more on the spot with that.
In regards to the metering on the MX, the little bit of visible light the 092 let's in seems to be metered close to what my incident meter was giving for iso 10, least for full daylight. Naturally though I went by the incident meter and bracketed.
The R72 filter which I used for the last frames course has no meter response on the MX, I basically over exposed that one a bit past what the 092 calls for.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-11-2017, 07:20 PM
|
| |
If you had a fast prime, that would seem like a rather dramatic tilt.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-09-2017, 10:53 PM
|
| |
Here's the amusing bit, while the Q10 is about a stop more sensitive to the IR filter than the Olympus E-M5. The E-M5 has stronger false color effect (problem on account of being less sensitive to the IR, and more sensitive to just under near-IR).
Off the E-M5 earlier today.
For comparison, with the Hoya R72 with the exact same photoshop processing as used above.
and Unfiltered with the same photoshop processing (minus the blue/red channel swap).
 |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-07-2017, 08:13 AM
|
| |
I'm at work at the moment, which sucks because it's actually sunny outside for once. Well people rarely show up for Open Lab at 10 in the morning, as a result I went ahead and took this 30 second exposure (ISO 400, f/2.5) on the 092 filter.
Some color/contrast shift in photoshop. The 092 gives a better range of 'false color' than the R72 filter, it's also tad brighter than the R72 given that it allows some near-infrared light in. White balance was taken off a sheet of white paper under the sun based on the camera's auto white balance (though the raw mode still exhibits a strong pink/red tint, so I'll typically take the Jpeg copy and apply 'color' blending on it as it's own layer to get the camera's white balance correction).
And here's two out of the camera jpegs, which I noticed that despite all the chairs being 'black' to my eyes, apparently two of them (one behind the desk near the back and one far right) must reflect more infrared light than the rest.
Hopefully tomorrow, before I have to get to an event later in the day I'll have some sun outside.
PS: Here's an initial test yesterday when it was overcast, and used the channel mixer to swap the red and green channel. The second picture is with the Hoya R72 which required quite a bit longer exposure time.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-04-2017, 09:24 AM
|
| |
Do you see the artifact on the original q body or on one of the others? Haven't noticed that particularly on my Q10 and the 01, not using a hood but rather a 40.5 to 37mm step down ring.
I concur that the focus ring on the 06 feels cheap, though the rest of the lens seems OK, just not as "solid" feeling as the 01
|
