IR-only camera justification?

[jake337]

I want to do this sometime too. These were all taken with a d70s(not by me of course)

the invisible light. - a set on Flickr

 

[Markw]

Frankly, IR being a special effect I can't imagine doing so much of it as to warrant spending big bucks on it. Fair enough. But I can, for the work I want to do with it. Like all special effects, and especially radical ones, IR will probably get boring pretty fast. Not for me. And if it happened to, it would go on the shelf. With photography being such a revolutionary art form, I think there will always be an opening for such a practice. 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. And IR can produce some stellar photos.

Probably the D60. IR is just like any other photo. The more recent model cameras generally do a better job of it. That's what I figured. Just thought I'd ask to make sure. 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. +1 Think of it as a tone of black and white. +1 There are people who will forever shoot in black and white just like there are people who will spend money getting IR done right. +1 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. +1

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

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. Agreed. I wouldnt spend $500 on the camera just for show and tell of what everyone else already knows. I have some pretty intricate shoots already planned for it. 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.

Mark,

Have you decided which conversion? Yes, 720nm for the effects it gives skin tones, eyes, and hair in portraits. I don't want full spectrum because I'd still have to use the filter and, thereby, a klunky tripod. I want to be able to shoot with the camera at a whim, and the only way to do that, to me, is to lose the 1/4 stop with the 720nm 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. No filters for me. Been there, done that.

I just discovered IR recently myself. I like it quite a bit. As do I. 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. Agreed. And it also does some seriously interesting things with humans when they are the subject.

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

I want to do this sometime too. These were all taken with a d70s(not by me of course)

the invisible light. - a set on Flickr That's great. The photos aren't the best I've seen, by far, but still shows what IR is all about. Thanks for that.

Messages shown in blue.

I like the nature aspect of IR, but I really like the portrait aspect, and that's what I'll be focusing on with the camera. Putting the two together will make for quite interesting photos, I think. I can't wait to play around with it!

Mark

 

[epatsellis]

Mark, I've been looking at the same thing and have decided on a modified D1x, the IR sensitivity of the D1x sensor is quite a bit more than the newer cameras from what I've researched. It's relatively simple to DIY the IR conversion using filters from Edmund Scientific. At a cost of around $300 for the body and minimal cost for the IR filter, it's quite cost effective. I've gotten spoiled by the handling of my D2H and D2X and have come to appreciate the pro body build and simplicity of operation.

 

[Markw]

I, too, love the pro build. But, if I'm thinking correctly, the sensitivity should be the same on all sensors, as it's the filter being removed that blocks the IR in the first place. But I only listed those specific cameras because I found a converter that converts and sells these bodies on ebay that lives about 20 minutes from my house. I can get them for about $170 off of the price they are on ebay.

Mark

 

[epatsellis]

That's what I thought, but after asking several IR shooters about a cost effective dedicated camera, all 3 of them told me the D1x is their first choice, hands down due to ease of DIY conversion, both UV and IR sensitivity and ruggedness. If you're not as budget restricted as I am, I'd think any of the more modern cameras would work equally well. My experiments with my Betterlight scan back have been encouraging, and the idea of having a dedicated IR slr makes sense to me (not so much to the wife, but you can't win them all.)

e