Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Delicate subject: radioactive lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Don't crush the glass with a hammer and snort it up your nose.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2021 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have dozens of lenses on my desk :p Not a clue which are radioactive :p


PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Radioactive lenses were largely a health risk to the workers grinding the glass. There is very little risk to the user of the lens as long as you don't smash the glass into little pieces that you can inhale.

I have a few radioactive lenses and personally I really like them. They are very sharp and the colors out of them are wonderful. I won't dismiss them just because they are radioactive.

You are doing more damage and taking a bigger risk going through those airport security scanners or getting annual x-rays of your teeth at the dentist. Those pose more risk to your health that radioactive lenses ever will.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I find this topic about radioactive lenses fascinating. I made some extensive research and wrote it all up here: https://lenslegend.com/radioactive-lenses/ Hope it helps, and you find it interesting.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
just my twopennorth.

I don't know much about radiation, only what I read here but what I do know is that it fogs film in high enough doses. Has there ever been a report of a photographer using said lenses complaining about fogging? I doubt it.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mantas.kalausis wrote:
I find this topic about radioactive lenses fascinating. I made some extensive research and wrote it all up here: https://lenslegend.com/radioactive-lenses/ Hope it helps, and you find it interesting.


Welcome mantas.kalausis!

WOW! Your article is the most thoroughly researched I have seen. Thank you so much for sharing!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
I don't know much about radiation, only what I read here but what I do know is that it fogs film in high enough doses. Has there ever been a report of a photographer using said lenses complaining about fogging? I doubt it.


I find the browning of the inner element in my Pancolar 50 to be quite irritating. I cleared the glass in all my other radioactive lenses with relative ease, but that Pancolar element is stubborn. I even opened up the lens and put the UV light directly on the radioactive element for days, and it still won't clear completely.

It throws off the color in every shot just a bit. Black and white still looks good though.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
just my twopennorth.

I don't know much about radiation, only what I read here but what I do know is that it fogs film in high enough doses. Has there ever been a report of a photographer using said lenses complaining about fogging? I doubt it.


Even a fabric shutter would stop the alpha particles given off when the lenses were new. Leaving the camera for several years with a thorium lens fitted & a film inside no fogging would occur. Now the lenses are considerably older & some of the thorium has decayed there will be some beta particles which could pass through to the film - but I strongly suspect the count will still be low enough that it would be most unlikely for a photographer to be able to see it. A single beta particle would be expected to act on film much like a single photon - a whole year at 100cps would be many orders of magnitude less than a normal photographic exposure


PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2021 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
I left a hot lens attached to my digital camera for over a year straight. Though there was a hot mirror and cover glass over the sensor. It still takes photos, but does complain on occasion. Outer space satellite type electronics are supposedly radiation hardened. Not sure what that means.


Also military electronics are hardened for protection during nuclear war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening
https://electronics360.globalspec.com/article/11959/the-5-approaches-for-producing-radiation-hardened-solutions


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah whenever I take out my camera in my F16 fighter to the stratosphere I have a few extra dead pixels.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
Can't believe this is not common knowledge amongst MFLenses users. Ionizing radiation can damage CCD and CMOS causing hot pixels.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920379617303915

Prior to remapping, how many dead pixels on a camera sensor are normal (2,10,50,100,500)?


Do you mean we need to store our cameras in lead cabinets & never allow them to be exposed to UV or cosmic rays?
Both UV & cosmic rays are classed as ionising radiation.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
This topic was started regarding lenses with a focus on human health, but not much attention paid to the health of the digital camera. The highest source of radiation in this case would be a lens attached to the camera.


Yes. The mirrorless sensor is exposed directly to rear of lens. AFAIK former test cameras had lowered mirrors & shutters to protect sensor. What is risk to mirrorless sensors?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wifi routers + smart phone usage is more dangerous than a vintage radiating lens


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
This topic was started regarding lenses with a focus on human health, but not much attention paid to the health of the digital camera. The highest source of radiation in this case would be a lens attached to the camera.


Friends You are one of the few people that has this concern as me. Although I am not a semiconductor device guy, I still "believe" the radiation will hurt the sensor. So to be safe, I don't mount radioactive lens on cameras for too long. Unfortunately, MC Rokkor 58m/1.2 has both front and back element radioactive, a lens I really like.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vivaldibow wrote:
Blazer0ne wrote:
This topic was started regarding lenses with a focus on human health, but not much attention paid to the health of the digital camera. The highest source of radiation in this case would be a lens attached to the camera.


Friends You are one of the few people that has this concern as me. Although I am not a semiconductor device guy, I still "believe" the radiation will hurt the sensor. So to be safe, I don't mount radioactive lens on cameras for too long. Unfortunately, MC Rokkor 58m/1.2 has both front and back element radioactive, a lens I really like.


I suspect your concern is completely misplaced, the alpha particles created by the original thorium decay would be completely stopped by any one of the Bayer filter, anti analysing system or micro lenses. However I concede beta paticles released by decay of daughter nucleotides could take out a pixel or two in time. I'd expect the sensor would be more at risk for natural cosmic rays especially if you take your camera on jets to holiday locations. Not leaving a radioactive lens mounted while in storage does tie in with the ALARP (as low as reasonably practical) principle employed with radioactivity safety, so even if there's little actual risk it will keep your mind at rest to continue.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2021 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
alex_d wrote:
wifi routers + smart phone usage is more dangerous than a vintage radiating lens


More dangerous to a CMOS sensor?


especially to a cmos sensor !

bayers are much more resistent to radiation


PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2021 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I appreciate all the people who have responded to this thread with information. It has been very interesting and helpful for me to read. I do wish people would try harder to refrain from unclear/casual/flippant humor, criticism/judgment, and opinionated words like “should” and “misguided”. This would be a kinder thread without that. My thanks to the OP. I am going to purchase the same radiation tester and see what I learn about my lenses!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2021 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Seems like a problem for sensors modified for full spectrum by removing filters.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3