IR mod question

SloYerRoll

I did a search for infrared here and got dizzy with the amount that came back. So here goes a new one...

Is there any reason besides faster shutter speeds to get your camera IR moded instead of using an IR filter? I understand there will probably be a marginal difference. I just don't see why I would take my old D50 and send it to LifePixel for this conversion when I can just buy a IR filter and use my tripod.

Thanks for your help.

gluwater

From what I have seen the IR filters give you very long exposure times, a couple of seconds at least. So if there is any wind or movement you will have a substantial amount of motion blur. I think it is just way more convenient. As for technical diferences, I have no idea. Maybe Andy will chime in here, he seems to know an awful lot about IR.

David_S85

A properly modded camera will have its focus re-tuned for the wavelengths of the IR light spectrum. Additionally, an unmodded cam using only filters will cut the incoming light to single digit percentages, if not less, further reducing the chances of accurate (read: manual) focus. There will be no chance of autofocus working in an unmodded cam.

Going the unmodded route will depend on trial and error exposures on your part, or at best, manual recalculation of exposures, and as Nick mentioned just above, to seconds. With an IR mod, exposure times are very close to a normal light camera, meaning even active sports shots are possible.

Lastly, a great many prospective shots will escape you due to wind or people movement using externally mounted filters. You don't need to miss those shots with a modded unit.

Nick does shoot with a older modded Canon Digital Rebel. As for me, I don't have an IR dSLR, but I do have experience adding R72 filters to older cams, and that practice really sux big time.

Andy is the IR expert around these parts, and he surely will contribute soon.

Steve Cavigliano

SloYerRoll wrote:

I did a search for infrared here and got dizzy with the amount that came back. So here goes a new one...

Is there any reason besides faster shutter speeds to get your camera IR moded instead of using an IR filter? I understand there will probably be a marginal difference. I just don't see why I would take my old D50 and send it to LifePixel for this conversion when I can just buy a IR filter and use my tripod.

Thanks for your help.

Nick answers this well. Apertures get effectwd too. In that these very slow speeds make narrow apertures tough to use. I mean you are may be talking about 16 sec speeds @F8.

Another issue is that many cameras, with internal IR filtering intact, exhibit a hot spot center frame. Almost impossible to clone out or edit around.

Steve

gluwater

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

I mean you are may be talking about 16 sec speeds @F8.

I have not tested it but I read somewhere that you actually get faster shutter speeds with the IR modded cameras.

Our own Nikolai at Zion NP Utah.


modded XT + 10-22 @ 13mm
ISO 100
f/8
1/80th

Very handholdable!

GREAPER

Before I go on to disagree with a couple of points I would like to say that I beleive there are many great advantages to a moded camera, Being able to see through the veiwfinder, faster shutter speeds, no filters or holders to worry about. etc.

That being said I have on ocassion used a cokin IR filter with my D100, with mixed results. I cannot say wether or not these things are true of other cameras.

A properly modded camera will have its focus re-tuned for the wavelengths of the IR light spectrum. Additionally, an unmodded cam using only filters will cut the incoming light to single digit percentages, if not less, further reducing the chances of accurate (read: manual) focus. There will be no chance of autofocus working in an unmodded cam.

I can tell you this. My D100 auto focuses just fine with the filter on. I cannot see through it, but it can. I can only guess that the D100 uses IR light to autofocus already.

Going the unmodded route will depend on trial and error exposures on your part, or at best, manual recalculation of exposures, and as Nick mentioned just above, to seconds. With an IR mod, exposure times are very close to a normal light camera, meaning even active sports shots are possible.

While the shutter speeds are quite low, usually about six stops slower than without the filter, my meter works just fine as well. I have found that it underexposes by about 1 1/3 stops so I use exposure compensation to correct for it and I can use my usual aperature priority.

Lastly, a great many prospective shots will escape you due to wind or people movement using externally mounted filters. You don't need to miss those shots with a modded unit.

Very much true.

If you can afford the mod, you will be happier with using it, and with results. If you cannot, the filter is a passable way to play with IR without spending the cash, but I am getting the mod done on my D100 as soon as I buy it's replacement.

SloYerRoll

Thanks to all for the answers. It has definitely proved informative.

Since I will only be shooting scapes and structures w/ IR, I think a filter is the way to go until I really see that IR is something I want to pursue deeper. As said before , I'm sure there are marginal differences. I don't think buying a mod for an enthusiast shooter is the way to go right now though.

It seems Andy is the resident authority on IR (and a host of other things). I hope he'll take a minute to post to confirm what my findings have revealed.
It seems the hot spot is caused by the lengthy exposure and how the IR filter refracts light. This can be defeated by bumping the ISO though. IR shots to my eye seem pretty noisy anyway. Can I get away w/ shooting 400+ ISO and not fall victim to the noise from high ISO since less light is actually hits the sensor?

Which leads onto another question:
I understand the old adage, 'you get what you pay for' pays well to photography...
If I DO decide to go the filter route though. Will a cheaper IR filter (25-40usd) provide acceptable results for me to see whether I want to have me backup body get moded? Or do I need to go w/ a, 'decent' filter and spend the 100+usd to get a filter? At the 100+ range, I'm almost tempted to just do the mod for 250. The only thing that holds me back from taking the plunge is if I mod my D50, I have no backup body for normal shots.
Last thing (for now) Any good resources out there that anyone knows about? I'm big on studying things.

David_S85

Another thing to consider about going the filter route is the cost. Yes, it is cheaper than a mod, but an IR filter in a 77mm size is still a sizable investment, about $200 or more unless you go the used route. They do get cheaper the smaller they are, but nevertheless they're one of the more expensive types of filters out there.

I have ordered from both the companies below and have received good service. I am in no way connected with either other than being a customer.

2filters.com

camerafilters.com

The cost to mod a cam is usually somewhere in the $300's plus shipping.

SloYerRoll

Hey David, Thanks for those links. That camerafilters.com link proved especially useful. They have some CRAZY filters!!..:D

While getting the mod sounds great. I'm going to stick w/ filters until I get yet another body so I can have two for "normal" pictures.
Fortunately I am only in the 58 - 62mm range for glass. This will help keep some of the cost down when buying IR filters.

Cheers!

gluwater

SloYerRoll wrote:

Hey David, Thanks for those links. That camerafilters.com link proved especially useful. They have some CRAZY filters!!..:D

While getting the mod sounds great. I'm going to stick w/ filters until I get yet another body so I can have two for "normal" pictures.
Fortunately I am only in the 58 - 62mm range for glass. This will help keep some of the cost down when buying IR filters.

Cheers!

Remember you can buy one filter for your largest diameter lens, or larger and use step down rings so it will fit your smaller lenses. No need to buy a filter for every size lens.

SloYerRoll

gluwater wrote:

Remember you can buy one filter for your largest diameter lens, or larger and use step down rings so it will fit your smaller lenses. No need to buy a filter for every size lens.

Thanks Nick,

So many decisions...

Is there a rule of thumb or resource to research as to the diameter of a lens.

i.e. an 85mm lens has a 58mm diameter (I only know this to be true since I have one)

gluwater

SloYerRoll wrote:

Thanks Nick,

So many decisions...

Is there a rule of thumb or resource to research as to the diameter of a lens.

i.e. an 85mm lens has a 58mm diameter (I only know this to be true since I have one)

From what I have seen it is really lens dependant. For instance the Canon 50mm f/1.8 has a filter diameter of 52mm, while the Canon 50mm f/1.4 has a filter diameter of 58mm. Generally the faster the lens the larger the front element will be, makeing the filter diameter larger. The new Canon 50mm f/1.2L has a filter diameter of 72mm, much larger than that of it's two cousins the 1.8 and 1.4. Also the largest filter diameter to buy I can safely say would be the 77mm, a lot of the Canon L glass is this size. But to be safe I would check the specific lenses you have or are interested in.

System

amazing
Can u tell me how - what camera settings, season and weather conditions, existed to get these 3 amazing photos of the trees please?

GREAPER

d22 wrote:

Can u tell me how - what camera settings, season and weather conditions, existed to get these 3 amazing photos of the trees please?

The ones in my post?

CavalierPhoto

Do you plan to take a lot of IR pics?
I had my Nikon D50 done by LifePixel to do IR only and couldn't be happier. I feel that there is a much more dramatic effect produced by IR than B/W. Plus it forces me to look at what could be considered an average image in a different way. Putting more emphasis on the image itself.

The question becomes one of personal preference in capturing IR images. If it's something you are willing to go head long into in order to capture IR images, than I say go for it. A good picture is a good picture, whether infrared or color or black and white. Otherwise, there are ways to PS images to look like IR.

If you aren't willing to sacrifice a good camera for it, and trust me it took me a while to decide, there are alternatives (i.e filters, etc.) I still have film in 35mm cameras that is sensitive to IR and I have to tell you that the digital conversion is a heck of a lot easier to deal with.

Chris V.

ian408

Your decision to try filters over buying a mod'ed camera is a solid one.

I have a mod'ed 350. It rocks! But I find I don't use it a lot. Especially since
I'm particular about the conditions I want to shoot in. Lots of light, big
fluffy clouds and lots of green trees...and wide angles.

That said, I am not sorry about the mod'ed camera decision. The benefit
of convenience makes the camera worth it. But again, there is nothing
wrong with the 72r route first--I did try that.

SloYerRoll

Thanks Chris and Ian.

Thanks to all for the good input.

Your knowledge helps so much when making crucial decisions like this.

Cheers!