Help with IR

leaforte

I would like to convert a body for IR. Any suggestions on a used non-expensive Canon body that converts well? Maybe a 10D, or 20D? Or is it better to buy a body that has already been converted? I really want to get a hold of an IR body, but want to keep it under a $700.00 price point. Is that possible? Any suggestions?

gluwater

I've got a Maxmax converted 350D(XT) and I find it more than adaquate. If you can find a used one buy it and send it in to get converted. The conversion cost $450.

mr peas

Rebel XT = $350 used or $400 refurbished from BH
Conversion = $450

Youre looking at $800ish. I suppose you can get a cheaper body such as the old Digital Rebel for 250 or so, but I would squeeze the extra cash to have 8 megapixels versus 6.

I've seen bodies sold for around $700 that are IR bodies, but its rare. I would buy the refurbished one (which I did recently) which is practically brand new and then have it converted.

I love IR, if you have the extra cash, you should do it. It will open your eyes into this new perspective. Lots of fun, I would honestly do it now during fall or wait until its near spring time, not much too shoot during winter.

GL and HF!!

ian408

The Maxmax mod'ed XT is a good camera for IR. It's what I've got and I've
been pretty happy so far.

CavalierPhoto

Lifepixel
Lifepixel is an option as well. They did my Nikon D50 and I couldn't be happier with it.

Their website is quoting the conversion for the Canon cameras mentioned at $350-400 depending on the filter used in the conversion.

Turn around time for mine was about a week.

digitalpins

May be a dumb question but When you do the conversion with them can you still shoot in regular mode as well as infared? or once converted is it just infared? I have a old rebel 350 and I was thinking about doing this....

ziggy53

digitalpins wrote:

May be a dumb question but When you do the conversion with them can you still shoot in regular mode as well as infared? or once converted is it just infared? I have a old rebel 350 and I was thinking about doing this....

It depends upon which camera you choose (for those with cameras other than the Canon dSLRs) and what type of conversion. From the MaxMax site:

http://maxmax.com/IRCameraConversions.htm

"[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]All IR-Only converted cameras will Auto Focus correctly in the infrared spectrum at all F-Stops. All IR+Visible Single Lens Reflex (SLR) conversions will Auto Focus in the visible spectrum. All IR+Visible Electronic View Finder (EVF) will focus in either visible or infrared depending on the filter used on the camera."


[/FONT]

CavalierPhoto

I went all in on my Nikon so it only shoots IR. Not a problem for me because that's my primary medium and I have another camera to take color pics with.

I thought Lifepixel used to offer an option that would allow you to take both but the closest thing I saw was a Full Spectrum Clear Filter. It allows you to take UV, IR and visible light pics but it would require the use of filters. Since your camera may already be IR sensitive it kind of defeats the purpose.

I guess it depends on the purpose you have for the 'old rebel 350'. If you're not using it much I say go for it. The camera can always be converted back (at some cost).

Of course you can always play with IR using an IR filter, which is substantially less cost than the conversion. This way if you find that you aren't really that keen on IR you aren't out the cost of a conversion to IR and then back to normal.

digitalpins wrote:

May be a dumb question but When you do the conversion with them can you still shoot in regular mode as well as infared? or once converted is it just infared? I have a old rebel 350 and I was thinking about doing this....

leaforte

Thanks for the quick responses from everyone. I'm in for IR!

Of course you can always play with IR using an IR filter, which is substantially less cost than the conversion. This way if you find that you aren't really that keen on IR you aren't out the cost of a conversion to IR and then back to normal.

Would the quality of the shot be the same?
And can I assume that I will lose a couple stops with this filter? And maybe AF abilities? I will research these questions....

Thanks Ziggy for the AF answers on the conversion model.

ian408

leaforte wrote:

Thanks for the quick responses from everyone. I'm in for IR!

Would the quality of the shot be the same?
And can I assume that I will lose a couple stops with this filter? And maybe AF abilities? I will research these questions....

Thanks Ziggy for the AF answers on the conversion model.

You will need to compose the shot before you put the filter on the camera and
the exposures will be much longer (seconds and you'll need a tripod) for many
things. But the filter is an option to try and see if it's what you want to do.

CavalierPhoto

leaforte wrote:

Would the quality of the shot be the same?

There's a couple of guys that take IR shots that way and post over in Other Cool Shots if you want to see some examples. Do a search on infrared and there's a bunch taken both ways that will pop up.

leaforte

CavalierPhoto wrote:

There's a couple of guys that take IR shots that way and post over in Other Cool Shots if you want to see some examples. Do a search on infrared and there's a bunch taken both ways that will pop up.

Thanks! I have started the research, and I think I will order the filter today, and then see where it goes from there. Now it's just a matter of which filter. Most of them are listed for different types of film (ie. BW) and my lens are different MM's so I guess I will order one for my widest angle zoom, an EF-S 17-85 67mm, and that should be the most versitle. If I like the technique (which I am sure I will) I will consider the conversion, so I can shoot more handheld, and use all of my lenses.

CavalierPhoto

leaforte wrote:

Thanks! I have started the research, and I think I will order the filter today, and then see where it goes from there. Now it's just a matter of which filter. Most of them are listed for different types of film (ie. BW) and my lens are different MM's so I guess I will order one for my widest angle zoom, an EF-S 17-85 67mm, and that should be the most versitle. If I like the technique (which I am sure I will) I will consider the conversion, so I can shoot more handheld, and use all of my lenses.

Cool! The two types that come to mind are the R72(modestly priced) and the 87C(more expensive) which should both be available for that lens and they should work for digital just fine.

Have fun with it and I look forward to seeing some of the results.

leaforte

CavalierPhoto wrote:

Cool! The two types that come to mind are the R72(modestly priced) and the 87C(more expensive) which should both be available for that lens and they should work for digital just fine.

Have fun with it and I look forward to seeing some of the results.

Thanks! 87C has been ordered from B&H and should be on the way soon. Can't wait!

digitalpins

Thanks ziggy & CavalierPhoto for the responses.... I get it now

CavalierPhoto wrote:

I went all in on my Nikon so it only shoots IR. Not a problem for me because that's my primary medium and I have another camera to take color pics with.

I thought Lifepixel used to offer an option that would allow you to take both but the closest thing I saw was a Full Spectrum Clear Filter. It allows you to take UV, IR and visible light pics but it would require the use of filters. Since your camera may already be IR sensitive it kind of defeats the purpose.

I guess it depends on the purpose you have for the 'old rebel 350'. If you're not using it much I say go for it. The camera can always be converted back (at some cost).

Of course you can always play with IR using an IR filter, which is substantially less cost than the conversion. This way if you find that you aren't really that keen on IR you aren't out the cost of a conversion to IR and then back to normal.

galla47

IR Help!
Hello,

I've been trying IR photography to no avail!

My wife bought me a B+W 092 filter for Christmas last year, and to be honest, I haven't gotten one good picture out of it.

Basically, every photo I take ends up looking like a B&W photo or film noir, not an infrared.

Here is my latest attempt:



I took this in Playa del Rey in California a couple weeks ago. I think this is the best one I have, but I still don't think it's anywhere near good. It's handheld, f3.5 1/1.3s No comments on the fuzziness.. I didn't have my tripod with me.. I'm still trying to figure out the exposure piece of it.

In past attempts, I would open up the shutter for longer, but all that would happen is it would be brighter (like even the parts that are "supposed" to remain dark in an infrared, like the sky). I can give some examples if you like.

I'm using a Nikon D80, which I understnad is not the best for IR, but I figured I would be able to get something! Should I give up now, or does anyone have any suggestions. I can also post the jpegs as they came from the camera, if anyone thinks that will help.

Thanks,

Kevin

jogle

galla47 wrote:

In past attempts, I would open up the shutter for longer, but all that would happen is it would be brighter (like even the parts that are "supposed" to remain dark in an infrared, like the sky). I can give some examples if you like.

Kevin

Hi Kevin,

do some reading on what reflects IR and what doesn't. Lush vegitation reflects a lot of IR so it turns white. Images of sand and buildings will look just like a standard b/w photo except for the darker sky.

Here's some good reading:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev00.html#top_page

ian408

IR conditions are best at mid-day. When everyone else has gone inside

Large, white puffy clouds and big green trees are outstanding subjects. In
other words, stuff with contrast works best.

IR shots take some extra processing and we have some great tutorials to
help you get going.