NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: ARTUROARTISTA on April 13, 2025, 10:07:38
-
Hello, can anyone tell me if a Nikon D70s is a good machine to convert to infrared?
-
It's OK, however a lack of LiveView can cause some focusing errors until you have a recalibrated system. No GPS.
The D200 is more capable however no LV with that model either. That did not prevent me from using D200 for many years for UV/IR work. GPS is supported. No LV.
The D5300 is perhaps the currently better option. It has LV and built-in GPS - however really needs a fresh aGPS file if you move the camera around a lot, or use it sporadically.
-
Hello, can anyone tell me if a Nikon D70s is a good machine to convert to infrared?
I read from that, that you can get a D70s for a good price. Then forget about my answer, go for it.
In case you are starting at zero, I recommend not to take a Nikon F camera, because of its long register.
F.e. the Sony Nex or 6x00 series with its short register, gives you a cheap possiblility to enter IR or full spectrum, with multiple (used) adaptors for all kind of (old) lenses.
-
It's OK, however a lack of LiveView can cause some focusing errors until you have a recalibrated system. No GPS.
The D200 is more capable however no LV with that model either. That did not prevent me from using D200 for many years for UV/IR work. GPS is supported. No LV.
The D5300 is perhaps the currently better option. It has LV and built-in GPS - however really needs a fresh aGPS file if you move the camera around a lot, or use it sporadically.
Thanks Birna, I'll take note. But what is GPS used for?
-
I read from that, that you can get a D70s for a good price. Then forget about my answer, go for it.
In case you are starting at zero, I recommend not to take a Nikon F camera, because of its long register.
F.e. the Sony Nex or 6x00 series with its short register, gives you a cheap possiblility to enter IR or full spectrum, with multiple (used) adaptors for all kind of (old) lenses.
Hi, do you think the Nikon D70s is a good camera?
They sell a well-maintained one for 100 euros.
-
Thanks Birna, I'll take note. But what is GPS used for?
I aim to have 100% of my photos with geographic coordinates and go to great steps to accomplish this. There are lots of reasons for this, mainly because many of my photos also are documentary and the location (and date) may hold special interest. I also use map searching as a routine when planning photo trips.
The above may not apply in general, thus many photographers wouldn't need the feature like I do.
-
I aim to have 100% of my photos with geographic coordinates and go to great steps to accomplish this. There are lots of reasons for this, mainly because many of my photos also are documentary and the location (and date) may hold special interest. I also use map searching as a routine when planning photo trips.
The above may not apply in general, thus many photographers wouldn't need the feature like I do.
Very interesting Birna, I understand perfectly, knowing your opinion is very useful to me, thank you.
-
Just showing a simple example_ I'm planning a trip to visit the wetlands around Øyeren, a natur preserve in south-eastern Norway.
1. Click up the map of the area,
2. Search for any images.
3. Go through the thumbnails to see what I did there earlier -- are there any leads which should be followed up, or aspects I haven't explored?
I could combine the geospatial search with date range, or theme, or whatever is of particular interest at the time.
-
Returning to the question of the D70, I looked at some IR images in the archive base and saw they all were taken with unmodified camera .... Shutter speeds were long, but not excessive, typically around 1/8 to 2 sec. Some times even shorter, at ISO 400 or so. I shot many of them with a hand-held D70.
Here is an exampe, under very dull and rainy clouds. EXIF says f/7.1 with a¨Nikkor 105, 1 sec, ISO 200. Thus likely done from a tripod.
-
Just showing a simple example_ I'm planning a trip to visit the wetlands around Øyeren, a natur preserve in south-eastern Norway.
1. Click up the map of the area,
2. Search for any images.
3. Go through the thumbnails to see what I did there earlier -- are there any leads which should be followed up, or aspects I haven't explored?
I could combine the geospatial search with date range, or theme, or whatever is of particular interest at the time.
Your work is important, congratulations. It's scientific and you try to deploy it like a network to capture a complete and powerful image.
-
Returning to the question of the D70, I looked at some IR images in the archive base and saw they all were taken with unmodified camera .... Shutter speeds were long, but not excessive, typically around 1/8 to 2 sec. Some times even shorter, at ISO 400 or so. I shot many of them with a hand-held D70.
Here is an exampe, under very dull and rainy clouds. EXIF says f/7.1 with a¨Nikkor 105, 1 sec, ISO 200. Thus likely done from a tripod.
Well, I really like that photo. If it's with a D70, it might be enough of a camera for someone like me. Besides, I don't think I need the GPS.
-
Just showing a simple example_ I'm planning a trip to visit the wetlands around Øyeren, a natur preserve in south-eastern Norway.
1. Click up the map of the area,
2. Search for any images.
3. Go through the thumbnails to see what I did there earlier -- are there any leads which should be followed up, or aspects I haven't explored?
I could combine the geospatial search with date range, or theme, or whatever is of particular interest at the time.
Where can one find that mapping application? A google search for "ShowMapEx" did not bring up anything relevant.
BTW the advice above to go for converting a camera with live view, or better a mirrorless with viewfinder seems well founded. I have an IR converted D40x that provides excellent IR captures considering the age of the sensor, but I just get inspired to use it too seldom as manual focus is a hit and miss guessing on a small manual correction, and the AF with some limited lenses might not always be right on.
-
Where can one find that mapping application? A google search for "ShowMapEx" did not bring up anything relevant.
BTW the advice above to go for converting a camera with live view, or better a mirrorless with viewfinder seems well founded. I have an IR converted D40x that provides excellent IR captures considering the age of the sensor, but I just get inspired to use it too seldom as manual focus is a hit and miss guessing on a small manual correction, and the AF with some limited lenses might not always be right on.
'ShowMapEX': It's integrated in my DB. Basically does an area/shape based SQL search on the (Lat,lon) coordinates pulled from the image records. Find the bounding box first, then scan points inside with a 2D ray-casting routine (Jordan curve theorem). Presentation is via WebView2/Google Map API.
D40X is in fact excellent for IR (or UV) if modified and the lack of Liveview can be dealt with. It's preferable to have the filtration inside so the peep-hole finder can be used.
-
Hi, do you think the Nikon D70s is a good camera?
They sell a well-maintained one for 100 euros.
as I said, if you get one for a low price, go for it. You always can change later for another camera with live view, that gives you more options.
Don´t wait too long, it is now the best time of the year for doing IR
-
'ShowMapEX': It's integrated in my DB. Basically does an area/shape based SQL search on the (Lat,lon) coordinates pulled from the image records. Find the bounding box first, then scan points inside with a 2D ray-casting routine (Jordan curve theorem). Presentation is via WebView2/Google Map API.
D40X is in fact excellent for IR (or UV) if modified and the lack of Liveview can be dealt with. It's preferable to have the filtration inside so the peep-hole finder can be used.
Thanks for the clarification, Birna, I had a feeling it could be a custom application.
Yes, except for the lacking live view, my D40x with the 720nm conversion works quite well, considering the age. It is just the uncertainly of that little extra post-focus manual focus twist that bothers me.
-
Nothing a few more stops down wouldn't solve??
-
as I said, if you get one for a low price, go for it. You always can change later for another camera with live view, that gives you more options.
Don´t wait too long, it is now the best time of the year for doing IR
Hola Thomas, I'm looking for a Nikon D200, but I've seen a Panasonic DMC-Gx7 Lumix. Is this camera valid for converting to infrared?
-
Hi, I am not an expert for IR, so it is better to adress those questions to Birna or others, who do much more in IR
my initial proposal was mostly related to the register of a Nikon F vs the register of most other cameras.
With a Nikon F camera you need lenses from/for Nikon F without IR hotspot.
With the mentioned Panasonic M43 you are open the nearly the whole world of lenses, same applies for other mirrorless cameras.
So, if your Panasonic is already modified and you get a good price, why not?
-
IR hot spots are a potential issue with any digital camera, be they DSLR, mirrorless, or medium format. No experience with the GX7, but I do know some Lumix lenses have a tendency towards a hot spot. This problem is caused more by the lens (and aperture) than the camera or filter used, or the position of the filter (front of lens, rear of lens, over the sensor). However all mentioned factors can on occasion contribute. Thus the field of IR photography is fraught with practical issues one needs to sort out one way or other. And did I mention focus shifts?
You simply have to try the various combinations to find what works. An insider tip is to search for older lenses as they frequently do better in IR. No guarantee, though.
-
OK, thanks Thomas and Birna for the explanations, we'll see what happens, little by little.
-
Just to exemplify you can get great results [at least, in the technical sense] with very modest, cheap, and dare I say, "old-fashioned", gear. This is a test shot with the Russian lens Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 @f/2.8 on the IR-modified Panasonic GF1. Straight b/w conversion in Photo Ninja. Do keep in mind the lens is around 50 years old (and came for free, as my friend Paul H. just donated it to me), and the GF1 is from 2009. So really pushing vintage class as far as digital cameras go.
It's just fair to say that a modified D70S will struggle to deliver such quality for IR photography. After all, the pixel count is significantly lower (6.1 MPix vs. 12-16MPix for the m4/3 models), and the peephole finder hardly offer any improvement either over the mirrorless options. There are plenty of good F-m4/3 adapters available so most Nikkors can be used on the Lumix models too. The only exception would be a Nikkor with 'E' aperture.
-
Just to exemplify you can get great results [at least, in the technical sense] with very modest, cheap, and dare I say, "old-fashioned", gear. This is a test shot with the Russian lens Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 @f/2.8 on the IR-modified Panasonic GF1. Straight b/w conversion in Photo Ninja. Do keep in mind the lens is around 50 years old (and came for free, as my friend Paul H. just donated it to me), and the GF1 is from 2009. So really pushing vintage class as far as digital cameras go.
It's just fair to say that a modified D70S will struggle to deliver such quality for IR photography. After all, the pixel count is significantly lower (6.1 MPix vs. 12-16MPix for the m4/3 models), and the peephole finder hardly offer any improvement either over the mirrorless options. There are plenty of good F-m4/3 adapters available so most Nikkors can be used on the Lumix models too. The only exception would be a Nikkor with 'E' aperture.
I like photography, the geometry of man and forested nature. The truth is, I'm interested in infrared photography. I'm looking at a Nikon D200, and today I saw a Panasonic DMC-Gx7. I think a company in Elche does the conversion, but I need to confirm it. I have a few lenses from analog cameras, and Russian ones too. We'll see how this story progresses. Thanks for your clarifications, dear Birna; they're always welcome.