IR Cameras

Dogdots · December 18, 2009

I'm looking at buying a camera to convert to an IR camera. I shoot Canon so I want to stay in the Canon line. Any suggestions as to which camera works best when modified?

I was thinking of a 40d, but am open to others that would be better.

Hope someone here can help me out.

Thanks

Andy · December 18, 2009

Moved your post to the Cameras forum and also removed the spare apostrophe ' from the title.

Why not try an IR-modded point and shoot? The image quality is simply amazing, I shoot with a $300 Canon P&S. So easy. So simple.

Dogdots · December 18, 2009

Andy wrote:

Moved your post to the Cameras forum and also removed the spare apostrophe ' from the title.

Why not try an IR-modded point and shoot? The image quality is simply amazing, I shoot with a $300 Canon P&S. So easy. So simple.

Howdy Andy --

Thanks for moving me and cleaning up my title

How are you feeling? Remember ... love your physical therapist .. they are your best friend even tho they cause you so much pain

What kind of camera do you use? I think I remember reading it was a G10(?) and that's where I started looking in the first place. But got sidetracked to a used 40d or Rebel because I wanted to change out lenses.

How big a print can your point and shoot print out?

Did you modify yours yourself or use Lifepixel?

Have you seen any winter shots taken with an IR camera? I've been looking for some winter scene's but haven't been able to find any.

Hope your feeling better Andy

Andy · December 18, 2009

Winter scenes? I'll look.

Here's winter in August, Canon SD 870

ziggy53 · December 18, 2009

I am rather fond of the IR converted Canon XT/350D, which I purchased "used" from a fellow DGrinner.

It is simply wonderful when used with the EF 17-40mm, f4 USM.

Scott_Quier · December 18, 2009

Can't fault Andy's advice. It would seem to be a very cost effective solution. I got mine before Andy discovered that the P&S do as well as they do. I have a 20D that I've had for a number of years and had it converted about 2 years ago.

Here's a pano shot I took along Alaska's Turnagain Arm last May ('09, f/3.5, ISO 100, 1/40s):

I did a little extra PP to get the effect I was looking for on this one.

pathfinder · December 18, 2009

Dogdots wrote:

I'm looking at buying a camera to convert to an IR camera. I shoot Canon so I want to stay in the Canon line. Any suggestions as to which camera works best when modified?

I was thinking of a 40d, but am open to others that would be better.

Hope someone here can help me out.

Thanks

Mary, I have a 300D converted to IR, but I am giving a very strong consideration to having my 40D converted. I think the 40D will make a very nice conversion.

Ziggy's suggestion about the 17-40 L is a good one. It is a great lens for an EOS APS based IR conversion

The only other choice I would suggest is a 5D... That works very nice as well.

ziggy53 · December 18, 2009

For the sake of completeness, not all lenses that fit a particular dSLR are good for IR applications. Many lenses produce a "hot spot" and some camera/lens combinations exacerbate the problem.

For Canon EOS cameras I created a list, gleaned from information out on the Internet. I have not tested all of these myself. The following are lenses believed to be "good" for IR on EOS digital cameras (by no means complete).

Canon EF 50mm/1.8 Mk.I
Canon EF 17-40mm/4 L USM
Canon EF 24-70mm/2.8 L USM
Canon EF 24-105mm/4 L IS USM
Canon EF 100-400mm/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Sigma 180mm/3.5 EX HSM Macro
(the older non-DG version)

Asahi Super-Takumar 55 mm f/1.8 MF
Canon EF 28 mm f/2.8
Canon EF 35 mm f/2.0
Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 MKI
Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 MKII
Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 macro
Canon EF 135 mm f/2.0 L
Lensbaby 50 mm f/2.8
Nikon 20 mm f/2.8 D
Nikon 20 mm f/3.5 AI-S
Nikon 28 mm f/3.5 PC AI-S
Nikon 85 mm f/1.8 Pre-AI MF
Peleng 8 mm fisheye
Phoenix 100 mm f/3.5 macro
Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 EX DG macro
Vivitar 24 mm f/2.8 MF

Canon EF-S 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4 L
Canon EF 24-70 mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-200 mm f/4.0 L
Canon EF 75-300 mm f/4.0-5.6 IS
Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.0-5.6 IS L
Nikon 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 G AF-S ED DX
Nikon 24-70 mm f/2.8 ED G AF-S
Nikon 24-70 mm f/3.5-5.6 UC
Nikon 35-70 mm f/2.8 AF-D
Nikon 35-70 mm f/3.3-4.5 AF (1986)
Nikon 35-135 mm f/3.5-4.5 AF
Nikon 70-210 mm f/4.0-5.6 AF-D
Nikon 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF ED AF-S VR
Sigma 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 EX
Sigma 18-50 mm f/3.5-5.6 DC
Sigma 55-200 mm f/4.0.5.6 DC

Scott_Quier · December 18, 2009

I have the following lenses:

EF 85mm f/1.8
EF 50mm f/1.4
EF 100mm f/2.8

EF 24-105 f/4L
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8
EF-S 10-22

The 85 is a total loss for IR (though it earns it's keep everywhere else).

The 10-22 can not be used for IR on my camera. According to MaxMax.com, they need to calibrate the lens to the camera for this lens. When this is done, the camera is said to be worthless for any other lens. I chose to use my other lenses and forego the use of th UWA zoom.

All the other lenses are good to great on the 20D. However, none of them work well stopped down beyond f/4. If I do this, I got the hot spot that Ziggy is referring to. I know this because I've actually tested this with each and every lens. I'm sure there's a way to correct for this in post processing. In fact, I've seen Ziggy post something to that effect, I just can't find it right now.

stuntfoto · December 18, 2009

Ir Camera SD 870
Andy, that s870 does amazing at night.
I just purchased one for a really good deal...
Do you have any idea how to IR mod the camera?
Do you use filters in front of the lens when you shoot?
Did you mod it yourself or send it in (i dont trust them with my camera)

-Roy Ruff:cry

Dogdots · December 18, 2009

Wow...You all are a wealth of information

Thank you.

Andy if you can find a winter photo that would be great. Since I live in ND I can be taking winter photos almost 5 months out of the year :cry

Scott I'm assuming that's snow on the mountain in Alaska

If so -- snow looks good in an IR photo. You mentioned the 10-22 lens not working on your camera. Does that mean on other ones too?

Ziggy in the list you posted I was wondering why the 50mm 1.8 is ok, but not the 1.4 or the 70-200 4.0 is ok and not the 2.8. Does that have something to do with the hot spots mentioned? These are two lenses I was hoping to pick up in the future. I was happy to see the 24-105 on the list as I have that lens and thought it would be a lens I'd use often.

Pathfinder it's nice to hear that someone else is thinking of getting a 40d converted too. But when I think of what Andy said about getting a point and shoot converted -- well I just don't know which way to go. Ahhhhhh....this is a hard decision.

All our photos you've shared are good. The do look like winter during the summer time. After picking out a camera I need to pick which filter I want -- Another hard decision to make

Ziggy you posted a photo all white with the red barn. How did you do that?

I thank you all again for your input in helping me. While I'd love to just buy a camera - get it modified and start shooting it looks like I need to step back and think my pick of camera out along with what filter to get.

ziggy53 · December 18, 2009

Dogdots wrote:

... Ziggy in the list you posted I was wondering why the 50mm 1.8 is ok, but not the 1.4 or the 70-200 4.0 is ok and not the 2.8. Does that have something to do with the hot spots mentioned? These are two lenses I was hoping to pick up in the future. I was happy to see the 24-105 on the list as I have that lens and thought it would be a lens I'd use often.

...

Ziggy you posted a photo all white with the red barn. How did you do that? ...

Yes, the main problem with lenses on IR converted dSLRs is the hot spot problem. No one really knows exactly why it happens, but it has nothing to do with a particular focal length. FWIW, I have problems with the EF 50mm, f1.8 and focus on the camera is very hit and miss. I rarely use that lens on the IR-XT as a result.

All IR images have to be software processed. I like the color effects that can be produced, but it often takes considerable effort to make something really interesting. That particular image has both typical IR processing (albeit exaggerated) as well as selective color processing on the barn. While color tones were moved around, I did not do any "painting" of the barn pixels. It makes a rather nice 20" x 30" metallic print, IMO.

Dogdots · December 18, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

Yes, the main problem with lenses on IR converted dSLRs is the hot spot problem. No one really knows exactly why it happens, but it has nothing to do with a particular focal length. FWIW, I have problems with the EF 50mm, f1.8 and focus on the camera is very hit and miss. I rarely use that lens on the IR-XT as a result.

All IR images have to be software processed. I like the color effects that can be produced, but it often takes considerable effort to make something really interesting. That particular image has both typical IR processing (albeit exaggerated) as well as selective color processing on the barn. While color tones were moved around, I did not do any "painting" of the barn pixels. It makes a rather nice 20" x 30" metallic print, IMO.

You did use selective color processing in the barn photo. I thought you might of.

So even if a lens is on the list as working you may still have problems with it....that is interesting. Then maybe if a lens isn't on the list it may be ok too?

You printed this in a metallic print -- I wondered how IR photos printed out. Have you printed one in glossy or matte yet? I was wondering which is the best way to print them. I love bayphotos ability to print out B&W photos -- I'm thinking their IR's in B&W would be just wonderful.

ziggy53 · December 19, 2009

Dogdots wrote:

You did use selective color processing in the barn photo. I thought you might of.

So even if a lens is on the list as working you may still have problems with it....that is interesting. Then maybe if a lens isn't on the list it may be ok too?

You printed this in a metallic print -- I wondered how IR photos printed out. Have you printed one in glossy or matte yet? I was wondering which is the best way to print them. I love bayphotos ability to print out B&W photos -- I'm thinking their IR's in B&W would be just wonderful.

I do have another list I made of lenses with a supposedly known problem with IR hotspots, and yet another list of marginal lenses. I hesitate to post those as future cameras may pose less problems (or more problems.) I am just trying to be encouraging I suppose.

You can do your own research and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2Binfrared+%2Blenses+%2B%22hot+spot%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2Bir+%2Blenses+%2B%22hot+spot%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

IR converted cameras "interpret" the IR into visible images, further manipulated by image software, so printing is no problem. There is no special printing treatment needed.

Metallic papers may or may not be indicated. I suggest that metallic papers are best used for bold and fairly saturated colors, whether from an IR camera or not.

Traditional IR film processing usually was to B&W paper, so many folks are used to seeing the IR images printed that way.

pathfinder · December 19, 2009

I will say that my 17-40 f4 L works very nice on my IR converted 300D. And my 85 f1.8 is awful on the same camera due to the hot spot ziggy mentioned.

Here is a link with good IR info about lenses and filters - http://heim.ifi.uio.no/%7egisle/photo/ir.html#lenses This link tends to want to forward you to a newer link - just backclick on the browser arrows if you need to.

Here is one of mine

Dogdots · December 19, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

I do have another list I made of lenses with a supposedly known problem with IR hotspots, and yet another list of marginal lenses. I hesitate to post those as future cameras may pose less problems (or more problems.) I am just trying to be encouraging I suppose.

You can do your own research and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2Binfrared+%2Blenses+%2B%22hot+spot%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2Bir+%2Blenses+%2B%22hot+spot%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

IR converted cameras "interpret" the IR into visible images, further manipulated by image software, so printing is no problem. There is no special printing treatment needed.

Metallic papers may or may not be indicated. I suggest that metallic papers are best used for bold and fairly saturated colors, whether from an IR camera or not.

Traditional IR film processing usually was to B&W paper, so many folks are used to seeing the IR images printed that way.

I can understand your hesitation to post your other lists of lenses after reading your links which took me to others with more information to read.
And I got to see the "hot spot" that was mentioned. It's a pretty yucky thing to have in the middle of a photo. My question is can you see it when you look at your photo in camera or can you only see the hot spot after downloading the photo to the computer?

I saw how to edit an IR photo too. It even led me to Andy's tutorial on editing

Thanks Ziggy

Dogdots · December 19, 2009

pathfinder wrote:

I will say that my 17-40 f4 L works very nice on my IR converted 300D. And my 85 f1.8 is awful on the same camera due to the hot spot ziggy mentioned.

Here is a link with good IR info about lenses and filters - http://heim.ifi.uio.no/%7egisle/photo/ir.html#lenses This link tends to want to forward you to a newer link - just backclick on the browser arrows if you need to.

Here is one of mine

Nice photo

I just love how the blues come out in the skies with an IR camera.

Your link had some good information. As for the lens you can use and can't use I find interesting. Investing in another camera is one thing, but then having none of my lenses able to work on which ever camera I chose...well that would be upsetting. Then that leads me back to Andy's suggestion of getting a point and shoot.........

With your 17-40 on your camera -- you never get hot spots?

Andy · December 19, 2009

I never get hotspots with the P&S - and you asked before about printing large, I have these both in 40inches wide, whoa, awesome print quality.

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/Galleries/Landscapes-for-Sale/634937_G88Gj#624442178_UQhv3

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/Galleries/Landscapes-for-Sale/634937_G88Gj#727283341_xyVQK

Scott_Quier · December 19, 2009

Dogdots wrote:

Scott I'm assuming that's snow on the mountain in Alaska If so -- snow looks good in an IR photo. You mentioned the 10-22 lens not working on your camera. Does that mean on other ones too?

I don't remember where the snow was on that mountain. The image was very strongly processed and doesn't really reflect reality. But this one, taken a couple of days earlier on the way home from Wasilla is pretty much SOOC - just some mild curves adjustment.

As for the question about the lenses. According to MaxMax, they can adjust a camera to use the 10-22 or they can adjust it to use all other lenses. It seems the 10-22 really bends light a lot and getting it to focus IR correctly is a different matter from getting other lenses to correctly focus IR.

NOTE: If you are sending a Canon camera and use their 10-22mm EFIS lens as your primary lens, let us know. The 10-22mm EFIS has a different IR focal point than most other Canon lenses. If we adjust your camera to be sharp with the 10-22mm lens, then other Canon lenses will not be sharp unless you shoot at F10 or high. If we adjust the camera for normal Canon lenses, the 10-22mm lens with not be sharp especially at the corners at 10mm

Source

Dogdots · December 19, 2009

Andy wrote:

I never get hotspots with the P&S - and you asked before about printing large, I have these both in 40inches wide, whoa, awesome print quality.

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/Galleries/Landscapes-for-Sale/634937_G88Gj#624442178_UQhv3

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/Galleries/Landscapes-for-Sale/634937_G88Gj#727283341_xyVQK

Andy is the point and shoot the only IR camera you have? I looked up the SD870 and it gets some really good reviews.

Places to purchase the 870 isn't easy to find. I found Amazon and they're selling it for $549.95 new. There are some other places that are selling it, but I'm not familiar with any of those.

Did bayphoto do your printing? They do such a beautiful job with B&W photos

Andy · December 19, 2009

Dogdots wrote:

Andy is the point and shoot the only IR camera you have? I looked up the SD870 and it gets some really good reviews.

Places to purchase the 870 isn't easy to find. I found Amazon and they're selling it for $549.95 new. There are some other places that are selling it, but I'm not familiar with any of those.

Did bayphoto do your printing? They do such a beautiful job with B&W photos

I use an sd 960 now. Easy to find and cheap

Yes, I printed 'em at Bay.

Dogdots · December 19, 2009

Scott_Quier wrote:

I don't remember where the snow was on that mountain. The image was very strongly processed and doesn't really reflect reality. But this one, taken a couple of days earlier on the way home from Wasilla is pretty much SOOC - just some mild curves adjustment.

As for the question about the lenses. According to MaxMax, they can adjust a camera to use the 10-22 or they can adjust it to use all other lenses. It seems the 10-22 really bends light a lot and getting it to focus IR correctly is a different matter from getting other lenses to correctly focus IR.

Source

I see what looks like snow up there

It really lets the snow show through pretty. Hmmmmm......this might work great for me out on the frozen tundra

Now I just need to see a color IR photo with snow to make a decision on which way to go on the modification.

Dogdots · December 19, 2009

Andy wrote:

I use an sd 960 now. Easy to find and cheap Yes, I printed 'em at Bay.

Just checked the price -- that's not bad.

Did you sell your 870?

pathfinder · December 19, 2009

Andy wrote:

I use an sd 960 now. Easy to find and cheap Yes, I printed 'em at Bay.

Interesting Andy.

I used an IR filter (R72 ) on a Canon G10, and the noise was awful. I never tried it again after that. Is there something different about your SD870 for IR? Does a filter rather than conversion make that much difference if there is plenty of light out of doors on a tripod?

Did you have MAxMax or LifePixel do you conversion? LifePixels Super Color IR filter looks interesting.

I am still trying to understand a 40 in print from a P&S sensor. Can you elaborate on that a bit?

ziggy53 · December 19, 2009

Having a dSLR converted to IR and the resulting issues like the hot spot and focus shift makes you into somewhat of a "pioneer" in that there is much less certainty about the results. As Forrest Gump said (paraphrased for our discussion):

"[IR is] like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

After a while you learn what works and what doesn't work, kind of, but there are often surprises with the process.

When Andy says, "I never get hotspots with the P&S", you can take that information to the bank. His IR converted Canon SD960 is obviously working nicely for the application.

How different subjects absorb or transmit IR wavelengths:

Green foliage is generally very reflective of IR and turns much lighter.
Water is very absorptive of IR and generally turns much darker.
Snow is about the same reflectivity as in visible light.
Tree bark is generally much darker tones.
Different minerals in rock can cause different effects.

CynthiaM · December 19, 2009

Dogdots wrote:

I'm looking at buying a camera to convert to an IR camera. I shoot Canon so I want to stay in the Canon line. Any suggestions as to which camera works best when modified?

I was thinking of a 40d, but am open to others that would be better.

Hope someone here can help me out.

Thanks

You don't need a lot of bells and whistles on a camera if you are going to convert it to infrared. A couple of years ago I bought a refurbished rebel xt for conversion and it is just fine. If you follow the link in my signature, you can browse my ir galleries; they were all shot with this camera. Google something like "refurbished Canon rebel" and you will find sources; maybe add a model name to the search.

Andy's images shot with the P&S are undoubtedly terrific. Two reasons to consider converting a dslr are that you can shoot at a wider angle than most p&s and I have found with ir, you are often shooting landscape and the wider angle ability is nice to have. And you can shot raw.

Dogdots · December 19, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

Having a dSLR converted to IR and the resulting issues like the hot spot and focus shift makes you into somewhat of a "pioneer" in that there is much less certainty about the results. As Forrest Gump said (paraphrased for our discussion):

"[IR is] like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

After a while you learn what works and what doesn't work, kind of, but there are often surprises with the process.

When Andy says, "I never get hotspots with the P&S", you can take that information to the bank. His IR converted Canon SD960 is obviously working nicely for the application.

How different subjects absorb or transmit IR wavelengths:

Green foliage is generally very reflective of IR and turns much lighter.
Water is very absorptive of IR and generally turns much darker.
Snow is about the same reflectivity as in visible light.
Tree bark is generally much darker tones.
Different minerals in rock can cause different effects.

Ziggy you said Snow is about the same reflectivity as in visible light -- so the snow will stay white? My concern is that the whiteness of the snow might look gray/grayish.

In Scott's photo of the mountain with what I'm assuming is snow stayed white. That's the look I'm going for in my IR's when I get a camera and start taking them. The trees staying dark will add to the starkness of winter.

Hmmmm...what would frozen ice look like in either BW or Color with an IR camera?

I just thought of something...would cold...extreme cold have any effect on the modified camera? I wouldn't think they'd be any different, but I don't know anything about them. If modification effects sensitivity to temps. How about the light bouncing off the snow? Scotts photo has the snow far away while I would be "in it" when I'd be taking a photo. The snow can be very bright.

Andy....are you having a blizzard up there right now

Maybe if your sitting on the couch you could snap a photo or two out the window. Won't have any sun bouncing off of it, but I could see what snow looked like on a cloudy windy day.

Dogdots · December 19, 2009

CynthiaM wrote:

You don't need a lot of bells and whistles on a camera if you are going to convert it to infrared. A couple of years ago I bought a refurbished rebel xt for conversion and it is just fine. If you follow the link in my signature, you can browse my ir galleries; they were all shot with this camera. Google something like "refurbished Canon rebel" and you will find sources; maybe add a model name to the search.

Andy's images shot with the P&S are undoubtedly terrific. Two reasons to consider converting a dslr are that you can shoot at a wider angle than most p&s and I have found with ir, you are often shooting landscape and the wider angle ability is nice to have. And you can shot raw.

Hi Cynthia -

Thank you for showing me what your camera is able to do. Your photos are really nice, but doesn't anyone go to Alaska in the winter time

My reason for thinking about a 40d is my friend is selling his. It's about a year and 1/2 old with around 25,000 clicks on it. Since I have the 40d now I'd know how to use it. The Rebel xti was my first choice when I seriously thought about converting a camera. I had the Rebel before and it was a nice camera. Never thought about buying a refurbished camera...hmmmm...

ian408 · December 19, 2009

I've driven Andy around enough to know that he can hop out of the car and grab a beautiful IR shot, pano no less, in nothing flat. The small camera is great for that. I compare it to the XT and the fact if I'm carrying the XT body, I'm not likely to take another slr body (and carry three). So having the SD would be more convenient for sure.

Dogdots · December 21, 2009

Craig passed on a winter photo taken with an IR camera. Sure looks pretty--Thanks Craig

It's the 5th photo down.

Art Scott · December 21, 2009

Dogdots wrote:

Places to purchase the 870 isn't easy to find. I found Amazon and they're selling it for $549.95 new. There are some other places that are selling it, but I'm not familiar with any of those.

Did bayphoto do your printing? They do such a beautiful job with B&W photos

SD870 EBAY LISTINGS ....several under $300

IR Cameras

Comments