Is my camera suitable for UV photography?

I obtained a Sony RX100 MK2 which has been converted to full spectrum. I've got reason to think that it's not suitable for UV reflectance photography. I shined a 365nm filtered UV flashlight towards the lens in a dark room, but the lens seemed to be hazy (foggy) in appearance, which to me seemed to indicate that the UV response is likely poor. but has anyone tried before using this model of camera? It's really sad. There's no simple way that I know of, to improve the sensitivity of the camera to UV without destroying the coating. Had I known that this would've been a problem, I might have opted instead for an interchangeable system. It might be very interesting by using a modified action camera also (Back Bone modification).

I don't know the direct answer to your question, but I do know from experience that UV photography is much more difficult to get into than IR photography. A large part of that is that most lenses block a large amount of UV, both by design and simply the choice of materials and coatings. I think an interchangeable lens camera would give you more options for UV-friendly lenses. But with UV, compared with IR, you also need to be more aware and educated regarding what you are trying to achieve, which wavelengths you need, and what your budget is, because to get good results is not cheap.

For example, UV landscapes are simply not interesting artistically. Nothing like IR landscapes. They look a lot like visible light B&W images. If you're interested in bringing out UV details in flowers, on the other hand, you can get a starter rig fairly inexpensively - just be aware that most flowers have already been "done" by other photographers, so be clear in your mind what you want to achieve. If you're just experimenting for your own interest, like I did, it'll all come down to how big your budget is.

If you're using sunlight, even on a bright day exposures will tend to be on the longer side, since not much UV light makes it through the atmosphere. Think of how long it takes to get a sunburn - not fractions of a second. With a suitable camera, lens, tripod, and filters, though, you can take successful UV flower shots on a bright day if the wind isn't blowing too much. If your camera can boost ISO fairly high without producing too much noise, you may be able to find a suitable combination of shutter speed and depth of field.

If you haven't found this already, here is a comprehensive site: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/

My best success within my meagre budget has been an older Micro Four Thirds body converted to full spectrum, and this lens/filter combination: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/273863933139?hash=item3fc38ffcd3:g:CEMAAOSwvv9ZgSTM On a sunny day I can get exposures of around 1 second at f/8 and ISO 800, on a camera where ISO 800 is pretty noisy already. I did this for my own curiosity, but realized that if I were going to get serious about it I'd need a bigger budget, and it just wasn't worth it to me.

If you're interested in UV for clinical or scientific purposes, you'll need $$.

Best wishes,
Sterling
--
Lens Grit

SterlingBjorndahl wrote:

I don't know the direct answer to your question, but I do know from experience that UV photography is much more difficult to get into than IR photography. A large part of that is that most lenses block a large amount of UV, both by design and simply the choice of materials and coatings. I think an interchangeable lens camera would give you more options for UV-friendly lenses. But with UV, compared with IR, you also need to be more aware and educated regarding what you are trying to achieve, which wavelengths you need, and what your budget is, because to get good results is not cheap.

For example, UV landscapes are simply not interesting artistically. Nothing like IR landscapes. They look a lot like visible light B&W images. If you're interested in bringing out UV details in flowers, on the other hand, you can get a starter rig fairly inexpensively - just be aware that most flowers have already been "done" by other photographers, so be clear in your mind what you want to achieve. If you're just experimenting for your own interest, like I did, it'll all come down to how big your budget is.

If you're using sunlight, even on a bright day exposures will tend to be on the longer side, since not much UV light makes it through the atmosphere. Think of how long it takes to get a sunburn - not fractions of a second. With a suitable camera, lens, tripod, and filters, though, you can take successful UV flower shots on a bright day if the wind isn't blowing too much. If your camera can boost ISO fairly high without producing too much noise, you may be able to find a suitable combination of shutter speed and depth of field.

If you haven't found this already, here is a comprehensive site: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/

I've never found out how to create an account for that website

My best success within my meagre budget has been an older Micro Four Thirds body converted to full spectrum, and this lens/filter combination: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/273863933139?hash=item3fc38ffcd3:g:CEMAAOSwvv9ZgSTM On a sunny day I can get exposures of around 1 second at f/8 and ISO 800, on a camera where ISO 800 is pretty noisy already. I did this for my own curiosity, but realized that if I were going to get serious about it I'd need a bigger budget, and it just wasn't worth it to me.

If you're interested in UV for clinical or scientific purposes, you'll need $$.

Best wishes,
Sterling
--
Lens Grit

I was primarily thinking about using artificial light sources, such as a Nichia LED, fluorescent blacklight. I've been able to make some UVIVF images that way, but not UV reflectance. I can imagine it being both pricy, possibly difficult, and to some extent, dangerous. I'm aware also that shorter wavelengths of UV are more dangerous. In fact, I don't even attempt anything with UV-C if I had the lighting first of all. UVIVF could be interesting to do with UV-B and UV-C, given that one could isolate themself from the lighting, using a remote way of turning the light on and off, and being able to eliminate all danger. Also, it might be interesting to use every UV wavelength for Infrared Fluorescence. It is like Ultraviolet-induced fluorescence for visible light, but instead, an Infrared filter on the camera for recording the part of the light which can fluoresce in Infrared, which I've tried slightly before using a Nichia 365nm flashlight with filter, along with an Infrared filter on my Sony RX100 Version 2. It required quite a long exposure in comparison to UVIVF and Infrared, but could be worthwhile for some subjects.

MacM545 wrote:

I obtained a Sony RX100 MK2 which has been converted to full spectrum. I've got reason to think that it's not suitable for UV reflectance photography. I shined a 365nm filtered UV flashlight towards the lens in a dark room, but the lens seemed to be hazy (foggy) in appearance, which to me seemed to indicate that the UV response is likely poor. but has anyone tried before using this model of camera? It's really sad. There's no simple way that I know of, to improve the sensitivity of the camera to UV without destroying the coating. Had I known that this would've been a problem, I might have opted instead for an interchangeable system. It might be very interesting by using a modified action camera also (Back Bone modification).

'Full spectrum' conversions vary considerably. Some replace the ir blocking filter with glass (which reduces UV) while others use quartz which is much better for UV. IMO a glass replacement is a two spectrum conversion rather than full spectrum - but few converters use this distinction.

Most modern lenses are very poor for UV, the best affordable options will have relatively little glass 'slower' lenses with few elements and no coatings. Special UV lenses are very expensive & often difficult to track down. I haven't a clue how the lens on the RX100 ii performs for UV, but it won't be better than barely adequate.

Older types of UV pass filters (blocking visual light) all leak significantly in the near IR where digital cameras are more sensitive. Your 365nm flashlight may well give off NIR too... I've not seen filters that block IR & pass UV well sell for under £100, so have had to try stacking a visual block (U340) with a IR block (BG39) This combination reduces the UV compared to U340 alone but does get rid of the IR.

Even with a UV sensitive camera, reasonably UV capable lens & an optimised filter stack UV photography is not easy! The best I've managed is some underexposed test shots that show a fair hint of UV features. Proof of concept at best, now I need to have another go under ideal conditions....

petrochemist wrote:

MacM545 wrote:

I obtained a Sony RX100 MK2 which has been converted to full spectrum. I've got reason to think that it's not suitable for UV reflectance photography. I shined a 365nm filtered UV flashlight towards the lens in a dark room, but the lens seemed to be hazy (foggy) in appearance, which to me seemed to indicate that the UV response is likely poor. but has anyone tried before using this model of camera? It's really sad. There's no simple way that I know of, to improve the sensitivity of the camera to UV without destroying the coating. Had I known that this would've been a problem, I might have opted instead for an interchangeable system. It might be very interesting by using a modified action camera also (Back Bone modification).

'Full spectrum' conversions vary considerably. Some replace the ir blocking filter with glass (which reduces UV) while others use quartz which is much better for UV. IMO a glass replacement is a two spectrum conversion rather than full spectrum - but few converters use this distinction.

Most modern lenses are very poor for UV, the best affordable options will have relatively little glass 'slower' lenses with few elements and no coatings. Special UV lenses are very expensive & often difficult to track down. I haven't a clue how the lens on the RX100 ii performs for UV, but it won't be better than barely adequate.

Older types of UV pass filters (blocking visual light) all leak significantly in the near IR where digital cameras are more sensitive. Your 365nm flashlight may well give off NIR too... I've not seen filters that block IR & pass UV well sell for under £100, so have had to try stacking a visual block (U340) with a IR block (BG39) This combination reduces the UV compared to U340 alone but does get rid of the IR.

Even with a UV sensitive camera, reasonably UV capable lens & an optimised filter stack UV photography is not easy! The best I've managed is some underexposed test shots that show a fair hint of UV features. Proof of concept at best, now I need to have another go under ideal conditions....

It's good to hear from someone who has tried it. The UV flashlight does emit infrared, but it is rather quite dim as I've seen using an infrared pass filter. In general, it's interesting to hear from people about their thoughts about this rather scientific branch of imaging, which I've tried to delve into mainly for artistic purposes. It might be worth something to try using a more expensive filter for the flashlight, then maybe at least a ZWB1, ZWB2, or ZWB3 filter or as you mentioned, U340. Well, at least I could image that way in a dark setting of rather small scenes, instead of landscapes. In theory, it seems like I could achieve some interesting result, but of course in practice it could be much different, so presumably I need to actually try it myself as I've described. That being said, it would be interesting to see what you can do if you ever get a chance at better conditions.