Nikon D300 and IR photography

El Gato

I have been looking, unsuccessfully, thus my post...

Does anyone know if the Nikon D300 is set up/configured "as is" to take infra red (IR) photography (with the appropriate lens of course)?

I'd like to venture into this pohotographic area but not sure if my D300 (or D40, which I also have) are equiped to allow such photography, as I know it all has to do with the internal lens configuration, original equipment design, etc.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

ziggy53

All of the current manufactured cameras that I know of have strong IR cutout filters, meaning they are poor at general IR image applications.

If you want to shoot IR imagery the best way IMO is to dedicate a camera body to IR by having the filter over the imager replaced by a different filter designed for IR.

A couple of places that are competent to do this are:

LifePixel
MaxMax

The original Nikon D70 had a relatively weak IR cutout filter and many folks used that body with a Wratten 87 filter in front of the lens to clip most of the visible light. I believe that you do need to use a tripod with that combination and shutter speeds are fairly long.

Not all lenses are suited for IR work so you will have to test and research for those that are suitable.

I do love IR photography (IR converted Canon XT):

CynthiaM

El Gato wrote:

I have been looking, unsuccessfully, thus my post...

Does anyone know if the Nikon D300 is set up/configured "as is" to take infra red (IR) photography (with the appropriate lens of course)?

I'd like to venture into this pohotographic area but not sure if my D300 (or D40, which I also have) are equiped to allow such photography, as I know it all has to do with the internal lens configuration, original equipment design, etc.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

Many of these cameras will take ir images if, like Ziggy mentioned, you use an ir filter on the lens. However, you must use a tripod, and an iso of about 400, set to a shutter speed of about 10 seconds or higher, snap, look at the image in the histogram, resnap, etc. until you figure out the right shutter speed. It's a royal PITA. Plus, you have to take off the filter, compose the image, put the filter back on unless if you have a live lcd, otherwise the filter is so opaque that you can't compose through the viewfinder. It's almost easier to try this with a point and shoot. Just hold the filter over the lens and compose through the lcd. If you want to play, pick up an ir filter and try it out; they are not that expensive. But they really jump in price if you need one for a 77mm lens. At that point, it is getting closer to the cost of a conversion.

You mentioned a d40. Maybe send that out for conversion? It's a whole new world!

Regards,

alexf

What most people do, as stated, is convert their older bodies to IR. Most D70 now are going to IR and I will convert my D80 as soon as I get a D700 as replacement. Makes no sense to sell older bodies for peanuts. Just convert it and give it a new life as an IR camera.

insanefred

I thought of doing it to my D700 and getting the 16-35mm lens.

InsuredDisaster

insanefred wrote:

I thought of doing it to my D700 and getting the 16-35mm lens.

Is there that much of an improvement to bypass a D70 (around $200 or so on ebay) and use a camera that costs 10 times more?

I am acutely aware that the D300's sensor is noticably better than the D70/D70s sensor when shooting normal light images, but I've never really compared IR images between the D70 and the newer cameras.

ziggy53

InsuredDisaster wrote:

Is there that much of an improvement to bypass a D70 (around $200 or so on ebay) and use a camera that costs 10 times more?

I am acutely aware that the D300's sensor is noticably better than the D70/D70s sensor when shooting normal light images, but I've never really compared IR images between the D70 and the newer cameras.

It depends on your use of the camera. If you intend to use the IR camera for a lot of photography and if the lenses you need to use will work best on a larger format camera then yes, you might be able to justify the extra costs.

Remember that only a handful of available lenses are typically suitable for IR photography. IR "hotspots" plague a great number of lenses, even very expensive lenses.

Anyone interested in IR photography needs to really research carefully which lenses will work and which will cause problems, unless you plan to buy additional lenses as well as the camera.

El Gato

IR Thanks!!!
Thanks to everyone that has replied to my inquiry.

It looks like (a) IR is a whole new arena in which many artful options are available; and (b) getting involved, at least initially in IR, has a fairly inexpensive (all things considered) entry as far as mid-range lens and camera body conversion go.

Thanks everyone for the helpful suggestions and information!

Much appreciated!!

Scott_Quier

Another idea offered by Andy at Acadia that I found intriguing - converting a P&S to IR. He says (and his photography bears it out) that he gets virtually the same IQ with his P&S and he did with his converted DSLRs.

If you use google:

andy IR p&S site:dgrin.com

You will find this thread. A good place to start.