Nikon IR Conversions

Kaouthia

Kaouthia

Messages
3,308
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
Just to clarify. This post is about bodies that have had their manufacturer warranties voided by having the stock filter over the sensor replaced by an infrared filter. This post is not about putting an IR filter over the end of a lens, and this is something that doesn't interest me in the slightest. Not an option. :)

Have any of you had any IR conversions done to Nikon bodies?

If so, did you get it done in the UK or did you ship to a company in the US?

I'm considering getting this done to one of the bodies I no longer use all that much, so trying to do a bit of research...

A friend of mine had a Canon 20D converted over to IR, and he shipped it over to a company in the US to be done (I guess only one company in the UK was doing it at the time and they weren't terribly reliable). He had all sorts of problems with customs when they shipped the camera back. They wanted to charge him duty on the full value of the camera and it took a LOT of work and effort to convince them it was his camera already and he'd only shipped it over there to be modified.

Anyways, I've been having a look at the Advanced Camera Services website. Have any of you guys used them? They seem to have several diffrent options available..

"Filters available are 720NM, 830NM and Quartz optically clear filter"

What does this mean in reality? I'm assuming they'll all produce different types of images, but how does each affect the images out of the camera? Does anybody have sample photos they've shot with these to compare? ACS do claim they can get other custom wavelengths of filter too, are any of you using something other than three mentioned above? If so, why? what benefit does it provide?

My friend with the 20D says the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is all but useless on his IR body. I don't know if this is something to do with the lens, the 20D, or the specific filter they installed in his camera. Is this something any of you have experienced with Nikon bodies?

If so, what other wide lenses have you guys tried that seem to work particularly well for IR?
 
Had one done in the UK last year -- someone posted the name on here a while back, but can't find a link at the moment. They charged 179 inc P&P for an R72 conversion of a D70, which is supposed to be the easiest to convert.

A 72 doesn't give a sharp IR cut-off so it lets some visible through -- you need to go for the stronger 82 IR filter if you want a pure IR photo.

The advantage of these over clear filters is that you can use the camera as normal -- you see a normal image in the viewfinder, whereas with a clear filter you always need to use a screw on IR filter.

Most lenses are not really designed to handle IR and can have hot-spots etc. It seems the latest Nikon consumer zooms are generally good bets for IR. Th 18-55, 55-200, and 70-300 are known good.
 
Hopefully I'm pre-empting some of Kaouthia's questions here and not just diverting his thread...

acs, are exposure times comparable to visible light with a converted body? Did your mod allow accurate autofocusing?

Next time I get a new body the D90 is likely to get modded, though I understand some bodies have sensors that're more or less suitable for dedicated near-IR capture. I work with mid to far-IR (research engineer), but this requires exotic sensors and germanium lenses!

e: Toonie's link answered some of my questions, but would still like to hear first-hand and if you'd vouch for whomever did your mod.
 
Exposures are a little longer than visible but far, far better than with the IR block filter - it's certanly worth having done if you have one of the older sensor based bodies: D1, D40, D50, D70, D200, etc. People are still wary of the later sensors but seem to be some reports of the D90 being ok -- even, apparently with video. <<< There's quite a bit of info on that site -- and he seems to have a good reputation for conversions, though he is US based.

There is often a focus shift on lenses and some of the older ones even have a second set of markings for IR -- I didn't have the D70 recalibrated, though that was an option. Trouble is, if you have the camera adjusted for one lens it could then be far worse with other lenses.
 
I'd probably go for wide aperture lenses to allow me to handhold. Would my katzeye split prism screen lie to me?

Thanks for the link, reading now.
 
Mud said:
acs, are exposure times comparable to visible light with a converted body? Did your mod allow accurate autofocusing?
Click to expand...

I don't know how they compare to visible light photos as far as exposure goes, but I have heard that the camera will meter them (which is a big bonus over using an IR filter over the end of the lens).
 
SussexBlue said:
Been considering getting my old D70 converted by these guys
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, it was an eBay listing from those guys that got me thinking about doing this. :)

I'd been considering it a couple of years ago, but it was just too cost prohibitive at the time.
 
Mud said:
I'd probably go for wide aperture lenses to allow me to handhold. Would my katzeye split prism screen lie to me?
Click to expand...

You should be fine with wide angles, though I've not used a split screen with IR. [must try some IR film]

I'm not sure I'd like a clear filter as a lens filter would still be needed, but if you went that route you'd be able to do UV photos as well -- though good UV lenses seem to be harder to get hold of (looks like the Series E and EL Nikkors are good bets). I should say, UV isn't something I've tried.

SussexBlue said:
Been considering getting my old D70 converted by these guys, they're only about 12 miles from me, must go over to have a chat with them one day :shrug:
http://www.protechrepairs.co.uk/about_us.html
Click to expand...

Think they're probably the people that did mine -- Uckfield rings a bell and they were due to move. Not sure I still have the receipt but I'll have a look on Monday. Assuming they are the ones, they had a wider range of filters than currently listed, so might be worth asking if you wanted something higher than a 72.
 
Checked and it was protechrepairs -- they seemed helpful and did a good job with a quick turn round.
 
I've been going back and forth in E-Mails with Jo from protechrepairs, and you're right, they're exceedingly helpful. :)

Now I just have to figure out the right lenses to go with this (apparently the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is crap for IR due to the multicoating on the glass), and then figure out if it's worth all the expense.
 
If you're after an ultra-wide, the Nikon 10-24G is supposed to be ok for IR -- that's the widest I've seen a report on (other than the 10.5 fish).

If you could get by with 18, the 18-55GII is good and obviously a cheap way to start.
 
acs said:
If you're after an ultra-wide, the Nikon 10-24G is supposed to be ok for IR -- that's the widest I've seen a report on (other than the 10.5 fish).
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem is I got the Sigma because I didn't want to spend £700 on a lens. That and all the reviews said the Sigma showed less distortion at the wider end.

I'm going to start looking at some older (cheaper) MF wide glass I think.
 
I had my Canon converted by ACS 18 months ago. Exposure and autofocus is no different. ACS know what they are doing and do a good job. When I went to see them they gave me good advice.
They are more than happy to discuss filter choice and your particular camera. Give them a call and ask the experts:)
 
I've pretty much settled on 665nm now. Just need to see if I can find glass at the right price. :)
 
Does anyone know if a nikon d40 would be suitable for infrared conversion?

cheers
Ian
 
Protech....they converted my camera for me. Well actually to be more accurate they shorted the circuit board on the brand new camera I sent them, writing it off.

Then they tried to fob me off with a customer return (with over 3000 actuations on it) they had purchased on the cheap from WarehouseExpress' bargain basement which they tried to tell me was new.

The camera they did send (the WE return) had dust under the IR filter, which was visible on all the images.

Eventually I managed to get them to take it back, but I noticed a few weeks later they had it back up on Ebay, so some other poor sod now owns it.

IanC said:
Does anyone know if a nikon d40 would be suitable for infrared conversion?

cheers
Ian
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a D40 I got converted, it's a more complicated and therefore more expensive, conversion than a D70 or D50
 
I own a Nikon D70 converted to 830nm and a Canon 350D converted to 665nm and both were carried out by Protceh (google them). Both cameras work fine with no problems, though I suggest you use a lens that does not have ED glass in it, it cuts down on hot spots.

Protech can convert Nikon's and Canon's, they don't do Fuji, but if you have a camera you wish to convert then phone them up. They offer a same day service, over the counter, which is excellent considering others are far longer.
 
If you have a quartz clear filter fitted to a camera you are in effect shooting in full spectrum UVIR. The images will have a violet tinge to them, you would have to fit an external filter to shoot within a certain wavelength.

If you have a look at the Fuji IS Pro write up, you'll see what a full spectrum camera is capable of. It's primary uses are in the field of forensics, investigation and medical fields, but I'm sure we can find a use for it in whatever field we choose.

I prefer a fixed wavelength, 665 for false colour images and 830 for a high contrast black and white images that required little or no post processing. The first thing that you have to do is set a custom white balance. I use 18% grey or green, depending on the weather conditions and the subject matter.

once a camera is converted it is possible to shoot colour photos with it using an lens mounted filter, but it would be difficult to achieve true colours without the use of photo editing software.

The best way to learn about IR photography is to Google it, or ask the experts that convert cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top