IR converted camera vs IR filter

What's the difference? I don't get it why would anyone take such risk.

Enlighten me please.

IR converted camera
http://www.lifepixel.com/IR.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

What's the difference? I don't get it why would anyone take such risk.

Enlighten me please.

IR converted camera
http://www.lifepixel.com/IR.htm

---

Hi Mark,

Digital SLR cameras have a filter that removes most of the infrared ... an IR filter removes even more light in the visible spectrum ... so between the two of them you've removed pretty much ALL of the light getting through, with the exception of a little bit of IR ... so you need long exposure times.

If the camera's IR filter is removed then the IR portion of the light can hit the sensor far easier, so you don't need as long a shutterspeed.

Not "risky", just "different"

Thanks for the reply Colin.

I understand now.

Will it be possible in the future that DSLR will be equip that you may able switch from visible light to infrared? Infrared images are good too. Seems I haven't seen one here.

Anyways, I don't have plans now to convert my camera..maybe in the future if I could buy another one.

Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

Thanks for the reply Colin.

---

You're very welcome Mark :)

Quote:

---

Will it be possible in the future that DSLR will be equip that you may able switch from visible light to infrared?

---

Anything is possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Probably the cheapest quality route would be to by the likes of a Canon 20D 2nd hand and have it converted.

Hi Mark - I'm currently having my "old" Canon 20D converted by a company in the UK. Provided the technicians are competent there should be minimal likelihood of damage resulting to your camera. Colin's points are the essential ones about whether or not to convert or to stay with an IR filter. The latter leads to very long exposure times, anything from 1 to 30 seconds and beyond. Thus, movement blur and ghosting are the norms in images. There are also issues to do with hotspots on from coatings on and within lens that seem to be exacerbated by long exposures. However, if you wish to try out IR photography, a filter is a lot less expensive than a conversion and can give good results. Beware, however, some of the hype surrounding IR photography. The IR radiation in question is a very narrow band from ca. 750 nm to 1000/1200 nm (cf visible 400 nm to 700 nm). While this waveband is "beyond the red", it is not the region of the spectrum that people normally associate with IR; it is not the radiation that heats things up nor that which can be used for thermal imaging. Nevertheless, spectacular images can result.

Cheers

David

hi.

Quote:

---

Anything is possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Probably the cheapest quality route would be to by the likes of a Canon 20D 2nd hand and have it converted.

---

I'll consider it when the time comes. But this time, I'll have to purchase IR filter only.

Quote:

---

Hi Mark - I'm currently having my "old" Canon 20D converted by a company in the UK. Provided the technicians are competent there should be minimal likelihood of damage resulting to your camera. Colin's points are the essential ones about whether or not to convert or to stay with an IR filter. The latter leads to very long exposure times, anything from 1 to 30 seconds and beyond. Thus, movement blur and ghosting are the norms in images. There are also issues to do with hotspots on from coatings on and within lens that seem to be exacerbated by long exposures. However, if you wish to try out IR photography, a filter is a lot less expensive than a conversion and can give good results. Beware, however, some of the hype surrounding IR photography. The IR radiation in question is a very narrow band from ca. 750 nm to 1000/1200 nm (cf visible 400 nm to 700 nm). While this waveband is "beyond the red", it is not the region of the spectrum that people normally associate with IR; it is not the radiation that heats things up nor that which can be used for thermal imaging. Nevertheless, spectacular images can result.

---

Thanks for the info. :D Maybe you could post your IR works here.
I think IR photography is very popular in my place. I guess.

Well, I have to research more until I get my filter and try it out.

Thanks guys!

Mark

Hi Mark,

Start with the filter, but be prepared to get to know your tripod well!

Thanks Colin.

Quote:

---

Start with the filter, but be prepared to get to know your tripod well!

---

I will. I think we are getting there. We already had our best time when I shot some Nightshot not long ago.

Merci.

Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triggerhappy

Will it be possible in the future that DSLR will be equip that you may able switch from visible light to infrared?

---

Mark,

That is one of the unmarketed features of the Sigma SD14 and SD15. Both camera designs place the camera's hot mirror (IR Blocking Filter) right behind the lens. The intent is to prevent ambient dust from settling directly on the imager. Of course, to actually clean the imager, the Hot Mirror just pops out. For broad spectrum photography, where no IR passing filter is used, or IR photography were you add an appropriate IR filter to your lens, just use the SD14 or SD15 with it's hot mirror out. These model cameras can easily be switched between natural light and IR.

Due to the nature of the imager technology, PP SD14 and SD15 IR images can be difficult. The Green channel usually has nothing, the Blue picks up a lot of IR and the Red is often out of gamut making it look like high lights are all blown out.

Since Sigma has just released the SD15, you may be able to find a good buy of an SD14, but you'll need remember that unless you convert the lens mount or use an adapter, usually impairing auto focus, you will need to then buy Sigma SA mount lenses.

I chose to go with a SD14 several years ago specifically because of the imager design and the ability to switch to IR photography when needed.