1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Don't forget to change the clocks on your camera equipment!

    Dismiss Notice
  3. It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of a long-standing member, Just Dave.

    Dave Barker was a member of Talk Photography for nearly 10 years, and was a prominent member for most of those.
    A very warm, friendly and enthusiastic member, he spent the largest portion of his time on TP welcoming and helping others.

    I'm sure all visitors to this site will join us in thanking Dave for his unwavering support and being a large part of our community.
    Our thoughts are with his family and friends at such a difficult time.

    Click here to join in the discussion

    Dismiss Notice
Tags:
  1. wibbly

    wibbly

    Messages:
    3,119
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    See quite a bit of it and really like the look of it but know nothing about it.

    How do you go about starting out with it. If I'm looking to buy a camera what am I looking for. I've noticed quite a lot of older camera bodies converted for IR. What are the strengths and weaknesses of those?

    For instance is an older Nikon D70 or equivalent Canon going to give good results?
     
  2. Harlequin565

    Harlequin565

    Messages:
    2,416
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The strengths & weaknesses are the same as they are for a non-converted camera. They're just (generally) older. If you get a cheap compact converted for example, it'll still be a cheap compact.

    However different lenses react to IR light differently. Some good, some bad. It's usually represented by a hotspot which is typically present at higher apertures (f8+)

    I tend to use an IR camera of the same manufacturer as my non-IR camera so that I can interchange lenses. This list gives you an idea of lens hotspot performance so if you already have kit, you can make a decision. A nice benefit is that cheaper lenses (with less coatings on the glass) tend to give better results.

    Conversions also tend to be of a specific wavelength. Shorter (590nm) conversions can be made longer with screw on filters, but you can't go the other way, so consider your choice of wavelength before getting the conversion done. My X-T1 is 590nm and I also have an 820nm screw on filter to give me more options.

    Jo at Protech (who did both my conversions) was really helpful the first time I went IR. She answered a lot of questions and gave good advice. Might be worth dropping them an email.
     
    wibbly likes this.
  3. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    1,924
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you get a converted DSLR you'll be limited to using live view as the AF will not focus correctly through the viewfinder.

    Mirrorless is the way to go as by their nature you are always using live view.

    I use a full spectrum converted Panasonic G3 with the 14-42 kit lens on it.
    This lens does not suffer with hotspots in IR (which is a real pain)
     
    wibbly likes this.
  4. Stuart M

    Stuart M

    Messages:
    727
    Name:
    Stuart
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Or you could do it the proper way and buy a cheap 35mm film camera + lens off eBay, a few rolls of Rollei IR400 film, and a Hoya R72 IR filter.

    Probably cheaper than converting a DSLR ... and more fun.
     
  5. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    214
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'd agree with both the last two suggestion but will add a couple points.

    While mirrorless cameras do make for good conversions (and I use these) sometimes you may lose infinity focus if not converted properly. Because the glass in front of the sensor is part of the whole system and lenses are designed with this sensor stack in mind. So this needs to be accounted for properly, and most professional conversion services will do this, but best to ensure it especially so if you do it yourself.

    If you do down film route (some I can see the attraction in this), make sure you have a good way of developing these. This can also get expensive (sometimes more than simply buying and converting a cheap mirrorless body).

    Good luck and let us know how you get on.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM
  6. wibbly

    wibbly

    Messages:
    3,119
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks for the info guys. Quite a bit to think about. :cool:
     
  7. Harlequin565

    Harlequin565

    Messages:
    2,416
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Heh - forgot about this. Been mirrorless for too long...
     
  8. Nod

    Nod Ethel Prescott

    Messages:
    27,528
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    While there's some truth in this, the WYSIWYG that digital gives makes selecting suitable subjects and composing for the different spectrum easier.
     
  9. Stuart M

    Stuart M

    Messages:
    727
    Name:
    Stuart
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I suppose if you want it made easier with less of a thought process then, yeah, perhaps film isn't the way to go. Me ... I still retain an interest in the nail biting surprise element. Digital can often be a little bit too predictable.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM
    wibbly likes this.
  10. Alan Clogwyn

    Alan Clogwyn

    Messages:
    6,726
    Name:
    Richard Alan Jones
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Not if it's converted properly, they will calibrate it to focus in IR - BUT the super colour type 590nm ish filters let through a lot of light so you can get quite soft results as the IR image focuses differently to the colour spectrum parts.
     
    wibbly likes this.
  11. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    1,924
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

Share This Page