IR filter on a non converted camera

Messages
665
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
#1
I was looking at SRB’s website and I noticed that they had a IR720 filter. It does say on their website that it means you can get IR photos with a non converted camera. I’ve never tried IR photography but I thought you had to have a converted camera with a filter?
 

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,443
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
The built-in filter blocks around 95% of the IR spectrum leaving a bit to get through. The IR720 blocks the visible spectrum and hence you're left with the 5% IR for the exposure and the subsequently longer exposure times.
 
Messages
8,497
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
The old Nikon d70 was pretty good for IR work un modified. Dont know if it had a weak IR filter or what it was the camera of choise back in the day. I had great results with one I had.
 
Messages
191
Name
Conrad
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
I had a go with a Hoya R72 filter on a Canon EOS M mirrorless camera (original mark 1 version).
The exposure times were long, and focussing was impossible with the filter fitted, so I put the camera on a tripod, focussed manually, then attached the filter.

It was good fun, and produced some photos I was pretty happy with. Reminds me, I must have another go at it!

You've got to do a fair bit of work in Photoshop swapping channels, but it is possible to get some ok images:

Garden2
by conradsphotos, on Flickr

Westminster2
by conradsphotos, on Flickr

A few more here
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,390
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, conversion means removing the IR blocking filter over the sensor, allowing all wavelengths through, and a filter is needed. Even the site cited says this, and adds that without an IR filter sharp images aren't possible.
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,390
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
P.S. I have used an R72 with an unconverted Sony a7r. Long exposure times, but still an image.
 
Messages
1,600
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
No
#10
I recently got myself a Hoyo r72 and use it on an unmodified Nikon D750.

I find that auto focus rarely works unless the camera happens to be pointing at a particularly high contrast edge and exposure is best done manually as the camera tends to over expose.

There is more work to do afterwards (I use Lightroom 5, Photoshop elements with the elements+ plugin and Nik Silver efex) but once I got myself into a workflow it's not too bad and, although it's early days for me, I quite like the results so far.

Give it a go :)


Thursley Nature Reserve by Lee Francis, on Flickr

Looking North at Farthing Downs.
by Lee Francis, on Flickr
 
Messages
8,497
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, conversion means removing the IR blocking filter over the sensor, allowing all wavelengths through, and a filter is needed. Even the site cited says this, and adds that without an IR filter sharp images aren't possible.
I had no problems getting sharp pics with D70, and Lees pics above with an unmodified D750 look pertty darn good to me. Maybe it varies from camera to camera and IR does focus at a slightly different point if I remember rightly, but I've seen plenty og good shots with unmodified cameras.
 
Messages
3,981
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
#12
Messages
174
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
#14
Some years ago I bought an IR filter and tried it on my DSLR. I was very disappointed for a number of reasons. Exposures times on a sunny day were typically 30 seconds so clouds and foliage is blurred. Focussing and setting the exposure value is difficult. However, I was convinced that I wanted to pursue IR so had my older DSLR converted. While they remove the IR blocking filter, then then add a suitable IR filter and I chose the 720 nM filter which would allow me to process B&W or colour. While B&W IR images remain popular, the IR false colour images are rarely appreciated. I you want to know more see my website and look at techniques.

Dave
 
Messages
3,981
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
#15
but was put off by the price of the Hoya IR filters.
The Zomei ones (Amazon) are pretty good.

If you're going down the conversion route, you can get a shorter wavelength conversion then add longer wavelength filters to get different effects. My X-T1 is a 590nm conversion then I have a 720nm filter and a 950nm too, so I can do colour & mono infrared work. You can't go the other way though (get a 720nm conversion then add a 590nm filter) which is why I went for a 590 conversion as that gave me the most flexibility.

Once you have a conversion done, the forced long exposures stop being a thing, and even adding a longer wavelength filter doesn't affect the shutter speed (much). This has the downside of removing the ability to do milky water/blurred clouds as most* ND filters only block visible light :(

Also, a good thread here with much information: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/ok-then-lets-see-your-infrared-images-please.493937/

Edit to add *some ND filters also block IR light as per @Canon Bob correction of my post below
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,078
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
I've got a Panasonic G3 M43 camera converted to full spectrum.

I find this is the best way to go as (with the correct filter on the lens) I can take images without a long exposure at any wavelength. Including ultraviolet (not tried that yet tbh).

I also use Zomei filters and can highly recommend them.


Trevose Head
by Terence Rees, on Flickr


This was with a 720nm filter and was 1/160th at f11
 
Last edited:

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,390
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
I had no problems getting sharp pics with D70, and Lees pics above with an unmodified D750 look pertty darn good to me. Maybe it varies from camera to camera and IR does focus at a slightly different point if I remember rightly, but I've seen plenty og good shots with unmodified cameras.
The point made on the conversion site was that the modification involved removing the UV and IR blocking filter from the sensor, and as UV (IF it gets throught the lens - different glasses and different cements even on the same lens can inhibit UV transmission) and IR come to a focus in a different plane to visible light, there would be unsharpness for this reason. Clearly, this won't apply to unmodified cameras. The only focus problem with these would be the IR/visible light focus shift.
 
Messages
4,078
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#19
The point made on the conversion site was that the modification involved removing the UV and IR blocking filter from the sensor, and as UV (IF it gets throught the lens - different glasses and different cements even on the same lens can inhibit UV transmission) and IR come to a focus in a different plane to visible light, there would be unsharpness for this reason. Clearly, this won't apply to unmodified cameras. The only focus problem with these would be the IR/visible light focus shift.

If you focus using Liveview you are reading the focus off the sensor so I believe this alleviates the focus shift problem.

I could of course be wrong but this is how it was explained to me.
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,390
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#20
It would; but if you're using a converted camera without a filter - which was the suggestion in the post I was responding to - it won't fix the focus problems caused by the visible and IR rays coming to a different plane of focus. Part of the spectrum will be in focus, and part out.
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,390
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#22
And in black and white, we use red filters to the same effect. Ans speaking of effects - the Wood effect (named after a person, not a tree) results in red filters potentially lightening some foliage, due to leaves reflecting strongly in the IR region.
 
Messages
397
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
#23
I first got into IR by adding a 720nm filter to my K100d which like the D70 has a weak hot mirror.
Hand held IR shots were just about possible with this camera but modern cameras will need longer exposures despite being able to go much higher in ISO. More recently I've used the same filter on a Panasonic G5 and needed ~20s exposures.
Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, conversion means removing the IR blocking filter over the sensor, allowing all wavelengths through, and a filter is needed. Even the site cited says this, and adds that without an IR filter sharp images aren't possible.
Yes a filter is still needed for just IR, though you can shoot visual & IR combined without a filter. Many conversions have the filter incorporated making a dedicated IR camera. All my converted cameras have been full spectrum mirrorless models giving the most flexibility. Even being able to pan motorsports with an IR filter fitted.

Adding a simple IR filter to a standard camera will need long exposures but should be a great introduction to IR.
 
Messages
3,981
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
#26
Lee's Pro Glass NDs block IR......I've used them on IR in the past and just tested again to confirm.
Good to know. Shame they're out of my price range....
 
Messages
823
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
No
#27
I've used both a Hoya R72 filter and 720 converted camera, the results were almost identical, the main difference being the filter needed long exposure times and thus a tripod. The converted camera didn't require a screw on IR filter and it focused just fine using AF.
 
Top