IR-only camera justification?

[Markw]

I'm thinking about getting an IR-only camera soon and Im having a problem going with something like the d70 for the camera, owning a D300s. So, what I am asking is if everyone out there thinks the photos out of the D70 with the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (lens I'll be using with it most of the time) will be of good enough quality to justify a purchase of the an already converted D70 ($400-425) over buying a used D3000 ($250-300) or D40x ($180-250) and paying $250-400 for the conversion? Image quality and printable image size are my main concerns. I can deal with any ergonomical issues the camera has over the others.

Thanks!
Mark

 

[D-B-J]

The advantage of buying a d300 and converting it is the layout is exactly the same as your d300s, which you are used to. Where as the d70 has a totally different layout, ergonomics, etc. The disadvantage is, of course, that it costs more. Now, i don't know much about ir photography, but that is my .02 cents.

 

[D-B-J]

And on a side note, in your sig, i thought you had bought the 150-500? So shouldn't that be off the wishlist?

 

[Markw]

I never bought the 150-500? I was going to change for the 50-500 when KEH had the, for $515. But they sold out when I was ready to buy it.

But my budget is nowhere near enough to get a D300. Im basically limited to under $500 for the whole deal. That includes conversion.a converted IR camera is the same, essentially, as a regular camera. Besides the fact that it only allows the IR spectrum in.

Mark

 

[D-B-J]

So how do they convert it? Or what modifications does it require? And if you are infact limited, then.. OH! I just realized i misread your original post. Disregard my first, as i read it as d300 and not three THOUSAND. Out of those three, it makes more sense to get the already converted d70. It's an older camera than the d3000, yes, but many don't like the d3000, and it was kenrockwell who said "its the worst nikon ever made." Now i've only had experience with the d40x of those you listed, which is a good camera, but if you could get the d70, why not get the d70?


And what do you intend to do with these ir photo's? I mean, do they need specific quality requirements, ie, a specific camera body? Or is this more recreational?

 

[D-B-J]

And i am no pro, i'm just trying to get you thinking and see it from my pov. Haha

 

[mjhoward]

IR Converting a camera isnt' that hard or expensive to do yourself. The camera model you're wanting to do isn't in here, but it should be pretty easy for you to figure out based on the other DIY's.

LifePixel Digital Camera Infrared IR Conversion Services. DIY IR Tutorials | LifePixel Digital Infrared Photography IR Conversion, Modification & Scratched Sensor Repair

Also, you should be aware that any lens you use will perform slightly differently than in the visible spectrum. Mainly, the focusing distance will be slightly different and your lens might be its sharpest at a different f-stop than at its optimum sharpness f-stop for visible light.

 

[D-B-J]

Life Pixel – Nikon D70 & D70s DIY Digital Infrared Conversion Tutorial | LifePixel Digital Infrared Photography IR Conversion, Modification & Scratched Sensor Repair

 

[Garbz]

IR Converting a camera isnt' that hard or expensive to do yourself.

While it doesn't require special expertise it requires delicacy and calm nerves which puts it out of reach for a lot of people even if you're not hamfisted. Dismantling a DSLR takes a lot of care if you want to reassemble it in working order.

Beyond that the conversion couldn't be more basic. Dismantle, remove IR coating, reassemble.

 

[Markw]

I'm not interested in dismantling my own DSLR. I don't have the patience or hands for that.

 

[Markw]

Alright, so I've got a plethora of choices now. Out of the following cameras, which do you suppose will produce the best images with my Tokina 11-16/2.8 in terms of dynamic range and sharpness, as much role as the sensor plays here, that is?

D40
D50
D70
D60
D100

Thanks!
Mark

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Frankly, IR being a special effect I can't imagine doing so much of it as to warrant spending big bucks on it. Like all special effects, and especially radical ones, IR will probably get boring pretty fast. The only positive I can think of is that you will always be able to find someone to buy the camera from you when you get tired of it.

 

[Garbz]

Probably the D60. IR is just like any other photo. The more recent model cameras generally do a better job of it. The differences between cameras really only apply before you get rid of the low-pass filter.

Cloudwalker, a special effect is only a gimmick if you treat it as such. Think of it as a tone of black and white. There are people who will forever shoot in black and white just like there are people who will spend money getting IR done right. Like buying a decent fisheye lens it's a big investment so you need to go in it with a right frame of mind, but for some (me) I don't think it would ever get old.

/EDIT: I have 4 rolls of Efke IR820 Aura on the way from B&H as we type

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I do not see special effects as gimmicks when used judiciously. And it's funny that you should mention fisheye lenses which, like IR, are a special effect applied to the entire image. The use of fisheye lenses as usually demonstrated on this forum is not judicious. It is used mainly as a special effect just for the sake of the effect which, to me, is extremely boring. I've seen better use of IR here but probably because most members see the investment in a special camera as a bigger one than in a lens.

And anyway, my opinion is only that, my opinion. And everyone is allowed to disregard it.

 

[usayit]

Mark,

Have you decided which conversion? One removes the IR cut filter on the sensor and replaces it with clear optic glass. The other replaces the IR cut filter on the sensor with a low pass IR filter of choice. The advantage of the clear optic option is that the camera is still usable by placing a IR cut filter in front of the lens. The disadvantage is focusing as the low pass IR filter makes it difficult when placed in front of the lens. The advantage of the low pass IR filter on sensor option is that you can see clearly through the viewfinder since the filter itself is behind the mirror. The disadvantage is that the camera can only be used for IR.

As Garbz mentioned, get the latest and greatest camera that handles high ISO fairly well (if you intend on trying to take IR photos handheld) and/or long exposures. You loose quite a bit of exposure through the low pass filter. For the most part, the photo will only use the red photo sites.

I just discovered IR recently myself. I like it quite a bit. In the middle of summer when everything is green, it comes in really handy when taking photos of subjects (like buildings) that tend to blend into the brush. IR (in BW conversion) makes all that green go white making the subject stand out more... more appealing.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/landscape-cityscape/249802-edit-abandoned-farmhouse-infrared.html