NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on February 09, 2016, 05:08:42
-
Hello, everybody! I am in the mood to replace the IR filter of a camera and which one of he above will make a good camera for that in terms of sensor and how difficult it is going to be to dismantle. The D7000 was a pain and I do not want to do that again... :o :o :o
Thanks in advance!
-
I put in a vote for D40x, not for ease of conversion (I used Lifepixel for that), but for its sensor and also the ability for custom white balance IR in-camera. It is also a robust little camera that is easy to carry in addition to other bodies, so it is more likely to come along. There are indications that some lenses like Nikon 12-24 mm are less prone to hot spots with this body (where Bjørn's initial review of that lens show hot-spotting with another body); it is a favorite beside 105/2.5 on my D40x IR-720nm.
-
I like my D200 IR conversion, but it is my first so I have no comparison. Also, I had the conversion done by a shop so I don't know anything about the difficulty. My favorite lenses have been the 70-300VR, 18-55VRii, 28mm f/3.5, and 10.5.
-
I have converted a couple of D200 with Lifepixel cover glass, It's fairly straight forward to do, the flat cables are always the worst part to do so take extra care there,,,
D300 is a nightmare to get together again,,,
-
I converted a D200 myself using Lifepixel tutorial with 665nm filter from a Sydney eBay seller for US$45. He is currently selling them for US$58.
It was not difficult and I did not desolder the one point as I could manoeuvre around it. Getting the filter spotless was tricky but not difficult. I ended getting some replacement rubber grips after I reassembled everything as mine kept peeling around the edge from where I had to rip it off.
I chose D200 because:
1. had the last big CCD sensor in a Nikon DSLR
2. can meter with AI glass and add non-cpu lens data
3. manually change white balance
4. autofocus AF-D glass
5. got a low shutter D200 cheap from eBay
It should be very easy for you Richard - I can't even think about pulling apart a stuck lens!
A couple for shots - straight out of camera just resized and straightened and one B+W conversion - both from a quick walk around my suburb.
-
I have used a good number of different DSLRs for IR over the years. Among the Nikon range D1, D1H, D2H, D2X, D3, D600, D40, D40x, D200, D300, D5200, and D5300. Plus of course Fuji (S3Pro) and Panasonic (GF-1, G-2, GH-2).
For many years I relied on the D200 as my main IR work horse, and in fact still have one of them floating around, but it is no longer used as I now find the dynamic range a little restricted. My current IR camera is a Nikon D5300 and my backup is D40X, both with internal filters of the R72 class. The D5300 is of course CMOS and while it might lack the IR 'punch' of the D200, it certainly resolves better and has a better signal:noise ratio. It also natively support GPS, which is important for my use (do note you really need to upload an aGPS helper file to this camera otherwise it struggles way too much finding a satellite fix). The D200 also supports GPS, but only by adding a GPS device as an accessory.
I think a D5300 is about a good as it gets in the IR world these day, but undoubtedly, a D200 is a cheaper point of entry for DIY. Don't overlook the charms and capabilities of a D40X though, if you can live without GPS support.
-
I went for a cheap D70 which I had converted to 720nm first three are with 12-24mm f/4 DX, last one 35mm f/2 D
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/374/20439347311_be86fca9eb_c.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7750/18426524145_7694bfe80d_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/348/17805809073_1b623bb833_c.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3851/19347757495_95d50091a7_c.jpg)
Didn't do it myself rather used firm in Sussex.
Ian
-
thank you everybody! looks like the D200 is the favorite here. I am also leaning towards the D40X due to the cost and compact size. :o :o :o
-
The sensor of the D40x although based on the same one as D200 is a later one and has slightly better dynamic range:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D200,Nikon%20D40x (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D200,Nikon%20D40x)
-
The sensor of the D40x although based on the same one as D200 is a later one and has slightly better dynamic range:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D200,Nikon%20D40x (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D200,Nikon%20D40x)
Øivind, thanks for directing to a good alternative of Sensorgen which seems to have been inactive for some time.
-
Glad it was helpful; Bill Claff's site has been around for quite a while and there is lots of other information there. I contributed the data for the AW1 dynamic range curve after he initially got some data that did not make sense. One thing to keep in mind is that photographic dynamic range depends on viewing magnification as do noise levels. So if two sensors are listed with the same dynamic range, the lower resolution one will be better at pixel level (both at 100% view on screen). The photographic dynamic range data on the site are standardized to a certain print size and viewing distance. I believe the DXO data works in a similar way although I am less familiar with their site.
-
Thanks for the further tip for the interpretation of the data on the website. If I understand correctly, the DXO data are based on the measurements on the pixel level rather than equalized for a certain print size. The difference seems to be similar to that of FULL and COMP (=compensated) in the studio comparisons on dpreview.com.
-
thank you everybody for the input. that was very encouraging! looks like the D200 is the all time favourite! i can source a junk here for cheap :o :o :o
are there any alternatives to lifepixel?
-
Richard
It really is not difficult to do a D200 yourself - your shots of the lens deconstruction is far more tricky.
Lifepixel site has DIY tutorial - as i wrote earlier I didn't need to desolder if that is intimidating.
The ability to AF and meter with old lenses is worth it especially if you do not have chipped lenses.
Just found that the AFD 35-70mm is pretty good on IR -v sharp AND the flare/haze issue shooting into the sun does not occur in IR
JJ
-
Richard,
I completely agree with JJ, you have already done far more complex tasks. I have converted a D70, D80 and a V1 and don't consider myself as a gifted person when it comes to fine technical tasks. So don't worry...
Olivier
-
Olivier
I haven't seen any of your IR but always enjoy your b+w. Can you post some?
JJ
-
JJ, you are being too kind.
I posted a few examples here:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1106.0.html
-
Olivier is a humble guy. His IR images are both majestic and inspirational!
-
thank you everybody for the reassurance 8)
i am actually allergic to fiddling with electronics :o :o :o
the last time i fixed something electronic was in the 80s (our betamax player)
the D200 is cheap now. selling for around $150 here used. i do find the lifepixel filter to be pricey...
-
A thread about someone who removed the UVIR cut filter of a D5100 with images of the operation:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42006940 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42006940)
-
A thread about someone who removed the UVIR cut filter of a D5100 with images of the operation:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42006940 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42006940)
that is probably a good alternative. at least i can swap the filters depending on my mood :o :o :o
looks like there are many ways to do this thing...
thanks for showing the link. i was not expecting the D5100 to be that complicated. i hate hidden screws!!!
-
LifePixel has some very nice conversion tutorials, the guy on DPReview didn't seem to know what he was doing,,,
http://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials
-
I did not realize they had DIY for that many camera models described now, much better!
-
I'm sorry if I'm intruding, but I might just be able to get my hands on a very cheap D40x. A couple of questions:
1) How much will it cost to convert it to IR and where do I get it done?
2) I currently only have the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm VRII f/2.8, are they useable for IR photography?
2a) If not, what cheap lens will you recommend?
-
Jørgen, the cheap AFS 18-55mm kit lens will be perfect for your IR converted D40x. It is suprisingly good in IR!
-
Jørgen, the AF-S 18-55 kit lens known as a good IR performer is non-VR version. Ai (or Ai modified K) 28/3.5 is also kown as a good IR performer and can be had cheaply.
-
Jørgen, I've also had good results with the 18-105/3.5-5.6G VR ED AFS kit lens. Has not hotspotted on my D5100-IR.
Unfortunately I don't have any recommendations about IR conversion in Europe. Here in the US, IR conversion costs $275 at either LifePixel or Kolari Vision. There are converters on Ebay which might be less expensive, but thus far I'm not entirely pleased with what I hear about them.
Maybe Olivier or other European members have some recommendations about conversion there ??
-
Thanks for the lens suggestions, those certainly are cheap lenses and I guess having a dedicated lens more or less permanently mounted on the camera would be a good idea.
As for IR conversion, I'm hoping someone like Erik, aka Dr Lens, might have some clues :)
-
Sorry I can't suggest any company susceptible to convert a camera in Europe as I have converted my cameras on my own (D70, D80 and V1, all with the same filter!)
Akira, can you elaborate on the differences to be expected between the VR and non-VR versions of the 18-55mm lens? I've only tried the VR and did not notice anything wrong.
-
Get an IR filter for your camera from Lifepixel or similar and let a local camera repair shop put it into your D40x. Or ask Erik ant any NG event.
The 18-55 'kit' zooms are good for IR. However, the D40x really has a quality sensor and any decent lens for IR will shine on it.
-
Akira, can you elaborate on the differences to be expected between the VR and non-VR versions of the 18-55mm lens? I've only tried the VR and did not notice anything wrong.
Olivier, so far as I remember, the non-VR version was the first 18-55 kit lens that became know to be a good IR performer. I just haven't heard about any info on any VR version. So, if you have good experience with the VR version, the info is new to me.
-
Well it is just one data point but the lens did not disappoint me!
-
I have good experience with 18-55 VRii on a D200 IR conversion. It works great and I have not seen any hot spot or focus issues.
-
Well, I've just paid $15 for friends old d40x (he upgraded to a used D7000). Not sure when I will get it, but I guess the next step is to get a lens for it and figure out which filter to buy.
-
Very good Jørgen, it should work out fine in IR ;)
-
The D40X is a lovely and endearing small camera and has proven itself very robust under real field conditions as well.
As there is no aperture follower, you need either AFS lenses or "chipped" manual lenses to get full control over the operation. The old AF screwdriver type will meter and otherwise function fully normal, but there will be no AF.
-
My plan is to this as cheap as possible :)
I'll probably buy an 18-55 kit lens as suggested above.
Looking at http://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-filters-choices I'm towards the "Super Color Infrared (590nm)" filter, but I would be happy to hear some advice? Can I buy these filters somewhere in EU to avoid the hassle of customs fees?
Erik: I will need someone to do the conversion as well. Do you know if the local DFA service center (at Goecker.dk in Aarhus) will be able to do it?
-
If you sweet talk them ;) They can do it, they just cant give you any warranty after they do it,,,
-
Looking at http://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-filters-choices I'm towards the "Super Color Infrared (590nm)" filter, but I would be happy to hear some advice? Can I buy these filters somewhere in EU to avoid the hassle of customs
Jørgen,
I have used lifepixel but to save "customs hassle" had my last conversion done at http://www.protechrepairs.co.uk/
I have been very happy with them, and the filters used are the same as lifepixel
Cheers
-
Jørgen,
I have used lifepixel but to save "customs hassle" had my last conversion done at http://www.protechrepairs.co.uk/
I have been very happy with them, and the filters used are the same as lifepixel
Cheers
I'm looking for an European based company, but they have steep prices. :(
-
My plan is to this as cheap as possible :)
I'll probably buy an 18-55 kit lens as suggested above.
Looking at http://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-filters-choices I'm towards the "Super Color Infrared (590nm)" filter, but I would be happy to hear some advice? Can I buy these filters somewhere in EU to avoid the hassle of customs fees?
Erik: I will need someone to do the conversion as well. Do you know if the local DFA service center (at Goecker.dk in Aarhus) will be able to do it?
I had an Olympus epl5 converted with the "supercolor" filter, done at Lifepixel. I ordered the camera from B&H and they sent it to lifepixel. My nephew brought it back after a stay in the US. It served me well. The shutter broke down and Olympus changed it for me at almost no cost. They did however comment that the sensor had been tampered with 8)
-
I'm looking for an European based company, but they have steep prices. :(
Chris,
Protec are cheaper than Advanced Camera and offer an equal service. Lifepixel works out much more expensive than both shipping to England. There are some cheap services on ebay but they will not confirm the source of their filters.
I settled on Protec and have been very happy with my two recently converted cameras.
Cheers
-
Fantastic image Børge!
Thanks for the links and info!
-
That is a great image Børge!
I have contacted Protec. I don't know whether I will simply ship the camera to them or I will buy a filter and get someone locally to do it for me. No doubt the most expensive part of this will be the filter + conversion.
* Thanks Bjørn for making me aware of the mistake, name corrected.
-
Børge will be pleased to attribute the miraculous spider image to him .:D
-
Your not the only one here called Bjørn here,,, I have corrected my mistake. Sorry for the confusion.
-
DFA service here in Denmark quoted me a price of 1500-1600DKK for the conversion and I need to provide the filter myself. Given that, I think the cheapest option for me might be to ship the camera to Protech and have them do it. Probably also best to have someone that's specialised in this do it.
-
That is an acceptable price from DFA,,, but yes ship it off to UK, I'm considering the same actually, The D7000 is notoriously difficult to get together again,,, The flat cables
-
Yeah, having seen the DIY tutorials on Lifepixel, it sounds like an OK price. I don't know what Protech will sell the filter for, but given the price LifePixel wants, I think it will be at least as cheap to simply get Protech to handle it all.
-
Yeah, having seen the DIY tutorials on Lifepixel, it sounds like an OK price. I don't know what Protech will sell the filter for, but given the price LifePixel wants, I think it will be at least as cheap to simply get Protech to handle it all.
I came to the same conclusion ....but as the conversion is expensive be sure you will be happy with the D40. I was very happy with my lifepixel converted D200. But now I have newer cameras converted (Protech) I would not go back. Imagine swapping your D750 for a D40.
Suitable newer cameras with LV and high ISO capability can be had for little money.
Cheers
-
I came to the same conclusion ....but as the conversion is expensive be sure you will be happy with the D40. I was very happy with my lifepixel converted D200. But now I have newer cameras converted (Protech) I would not go back. Imagine swapping your D750 for a D40.
Suitable newer cameras with LV and high ISO capability can be had for little money.
Cheers
Good point. I practically got the camera for free though and the plan was to do this as cheaply as possible, which also means buying a very cheap 18-55 kit lens. What camera would you recommend as an alternative?
I can certainly see LV being a nice feature, but I wonder whether high ISO is particularly important?
-
ISO performance may or may not be important to you, it certainly is for me.
I have gone mirrorless for my IR cameras (fujifilm/nikon), but it looks like Erik is upgrading from D200 to a D7000 ....Bjørn has a red IR D5xxx.
The cheapest Nikon DSLR would be a D3xxx ....the features you like in your standard camera, will be just as applicable to your converted one.
Cheers
-
I completely agree, but if just for fun or wanting to try it out a D40X and kit zoom is amazing!
If you hoot the D200 at ISO 100-200 the files are so clean in IR
-
I admit shamelessly that I liked the small D40X much more than the new red 5300, despite the latter having superior features such as built-in GPS, 24 MPix, much better high ISO performance, and LiveView. There was something about the snappiness of the D40X CCD-based files that always endeared me. Its tactility in handling was better too and although neither of them have great viewfinders, the D40x always allowed me to put focus exactly where I wanted no matter what lens I used on it.
Both are crippled in the same manner regarding their compatibility with older Nikkors, but as I used them with chipped lenses that was of no concern.
Get a super cheap 18-55 kit lens of any version and shoot away to your heart's content. Do note that focus shift in IR can be massive with these optics.
-
I agree...there is something about CCD sensors...they are less "woolly" in nature.
-
My thinking about ISO not being that important was because I thought IR shooting would mostly be of static subjects. I do think I will simply go with the d40x. As a first entry into the world, it should suffice I think.
-
I am sure you will be very happy ....I did not want to put you off the idea!
Cheers
-
I'm happy for all advice as I know basically nothing about IR :)
-
This thread actually proved very helpful to me .... I looked for a D40x in my cupboards and found 2 whilst expected 1.... Turned out one is "full spectrum" (ie., no internal filer pack), the other is IR (internal 720 nm filter). I only remembered the IR model. Thus, now I "got" a new UV/IR/Vis camera - for free :D
-
I'm happy for all advice as I know basically nothing about IR :)
IR is about photography, so basically nothing extraordinary is required. Just remember the photo has to function without the IR component. IR glamour can cut both ways. You'll discover these things soon enough.
Digital-based IR is more true than film in the sense that skies are not necessarily rendered jet black and shadows are not blocked up. On the contrary, shadows will have splendid detail. The "IR Look" of the past that so many try to 'recover' today was just the deficiencies of Kodak HIE film without anti-halation backing and having excessive contrast.
About the only IR-feature needed to learn is what lenses don't exhibit the dreaded IR hot spot. Actually it is the combination of lens, filter, sunshade, light, and camera, that generates the spot so some lenses described as "bad" may function well on a given camera, and vice versa.
-
By the way, Rick,
A stock D40 can be used for IR without modification, although you need a tripod and the exposure time will be at least several seconds. This image was shot with a stock D40, K Nikkor 28/3.5 and Fuji tri acetyl cellulose IR90 filter. ISO400, 10 sec., aperture was set to f8.0 or 11.
-
This is how the unprocessed NEF data looks like (only converted to JPEG and resized).
-
Akira, the reddish low-contrast files should not put people away from making excellent IR photos. One just has to remember that digital IR is not anything like what we might have seen as the "norm" from film in the old days.
A soft, low-contrast file is a perfect starting point for the processing into an IR image, whether it be colour or b/w.
-
Jørgen, thanks to this thread I not only discovered more D40X cameras in my possession than I had expected - also found an epiphany that the "full-spectrum" D40x will allow me to emulate the false colour rendition of IE 2443 Ektachrome at least as well as by using the Fuji S3 Pro. Now, that is excellent news because processing the RAFs from the Fuji is a nightmare since almost no software will deal with them, and among the very few that do, even fewer pay attention to the peculiar S-R pixel structure of the Fuji sensor.
In contrast, ASP 2.4 allows me a quick and easy processing of the D40X NEFs. If extra sharpness is required, I can do a parallel processing in PhotoNinja and merge the results later.
It does not matter really that there is no GPS with the D40x as the Fuji also lacks this feature and has to be synchronised with a GPS logger anyway. Between having files that allow me proper false-colour emulation, and a camera with GPS (D5300) but restricted false-colour support, I take the first option any day. That is of course if I'm in false-colour IR mode of operation, so the D5300 still goes strong on its own.
-
A bit OT, and with the risk of sounding stupid, what filters is needed on the lens after a UV/Vis/IR conversion of a camera? That is if one want to take pictures in the visible spectrum?
-
For a camera with built-in IR filtration, the ability to shoot in visible basically is lost. Same applies to the much more uncommon variant in which the camera has a UV bandpass filter inside.
For "full spectrum" cameras, ie. those without any internal filter only clear glass or a quartz window, you need a UV/IR cut filter over the lens and probably either a colour balancing filter like BG-38 or its ilk. You can forego the colour balance if you shoot a Colorchecker Passport etc. and build a session profile from it.
-
I'm glad I could help Bjørn :D
-
Thank you Bjørn. Thats what I thought, but it`s always nice to get a well referenced confirmation :)
-
Bjørn, What filtration on a full-spectrum [,not a Fuji S-3,] camera would allow the user to emulate the color mapping of the old Ektachrome Infrared EIR film? I remember that Kodak asked for a minus-blue filter; would this be the starting point for EIR simulation?
-
Akira, the reddish low-contrast files should not put people away from making excellent IR photos. One just has to remember that digital IR is not anything like what we might have seen as the "norm" from film in the old days.
A soft, low-contrast file is a perfect starting point for the processing into an IR image, whether it be colour or b/w.
Bjørn, I know. I hadn't just been able to learn proper method to make colourful IR images from this pinkish RAW files. But I found that all R, G and B channels can put out almost equal data when used with IR84 and denser filters, so B&W conversion can yield the images of higher resolution than the false-color processing.
-
Bjørn, I know. I hadn't just been able to learn proper method to make colourful IR images from this pinkish RAW files. But I found that all R, G and B channels can put out almost equal data when used with IR84 and denser filters, so B&W conversion can yield the images of higher resolution than the false-color processing.
Akira - great shot with the mirror!
I have so little idea of processing that I don't know how to make colourful IR images either apart from choosing a white balance point.
I too had a play with uncoverted D100 using filter. Focus was using hyperfocal scale and hoping it was in focus. I think I had got the idea for messing around with IR after reading Naturfoto site but never got the crispness that Bjorn R got and gave up.
First straight out of camera and the next with selected white point. 2005, San Francisco from my hotel room: AFD 24mm ISO200 1/8s @f7.1 with Hoya R25 filter
-
JJ, thanks!
This is my weirdest color IR image I could get from the ancient unmodified D2H (sorry to be off-topic). I cannot locate the original unedited NEF. I re-edit the already processed NEF. I tweaked hue and color temperature, and enhanced micro contrast using the "clarity" slider of CC2015. If I remember correctly, the lens used was Ai (or Ai modified) 28/3.5.
-
Yeah, having seen the DIY tutorials on Lifepixel, it sounds like an OK price. I don't know what Protech will sell the filter for, but given the price LifePixel wants, I think it will be at least as cheap to simply get Protech to handle it all.
Protech wants 55GBP for the filter + 10GPB for shipping. Fair price, but put together with the price of the conversion (done locally here), it's about the same price as getting them to do it.
-
Protech wants 55GBP for the filter + 10GPB for shipping. Fair price, but put together with the price of the conversion (done locally here), it's about the same price as getting them to do it.
Jørgen
I'm not affiliated with this crowd but they do sell the glass fairly cheap.
http://stores.ebay.com.au/JJCAMERA?_trksid=p2047675.l2563
I replaced my D200 with 665nm filter from them (paid A$66) and DIY through lifepixel website. I think its well worth doing and not super difficult
JJ
View from my front gate this AM
-
That's a pretty good price, but when you add the taxes and shipping I will incur to import it from Australia, it's not quite as good a price.
-
It was probably a bit of quality overkill but I had a D3200 converted to 720. The 24mp sensor is excellent and they are relatively inexpensive. I use it exclusively with the 16-85 DX lens. The lens is very good optically, has a nice focal range, has no issues with IR, and can now be acquired for a low price thanks to Nikon releasing the new 16-80.
-
Wesstl, please show you IR pictures, you obviously have invested in a great tool!
-
Nikon V1 + 6.7-13mm
Red/Blue channels swapped.
-
Wesstl, please show you IR pictures, you obviously have invested in a great tool!
This is a current "in progress" image taken with the D3200/16-80 IR combo. Still trying to figure out what I want to do with it.
-
Chris and wesstl, thank you. I enjoy your renditions of the pictures a lot.
Here is a D200 with the 600nm filter and the Sigma 8mm circular fish-eye.
Taken in Utrecht with my new friends.
You will depict Frank explaining something really important, Thomas to his right listening to him carefully, while Bruno the Gentleman and myself were taking a selfie.
Perhaps, I will re-post this image in the Utrecht thread because I just love it and the way how it showed our spirits and immediate friendship :)
-
I finally got it! It was mostly a matter of me actually getting it shipped to http://www.protechrepairs.co.uk/ which modified the camera and shipped it back to me faster than I expected. I believe it was shipped either on the same day it arrived at their office or the day after. I got it modified with a 590nm Filter.
Not exactly the optimal time to go shooting - it was evening and raining, but here are the first test shots:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7622/27495150003_d4e5b2b8e8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HTDQbp)
2016-07-05 IR - first test shots 028 (https://flic.kr/p/HTDQbp) by Joergen Ramskov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jramskov/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7438/28076230456_7364195b51_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JM129U)2016-07-05 IR - first test shots 023 (https://flic.kr/p/JM129U) by Joergen Ramskov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jramskov/), on Flickr
I have no clue about post processing IR photos, so I have just been fooling around a bit in LR :)
-
This is of course not what precisely should be designated 'IR' more like the 'colour enhancement' kind of camera. One can do lots of useful stuff with this system and many find it easier to deal with false colours than the more straight-forward and moody IR itself.
A very quick-and-dirty fiddling with your climbing vine picture, just to indicate what the camera delivers and what you end up with will be highly different,
-
Wow!
-
< 1 minute including getting a screen dump.
Of course, starting with the RAW file and polishing everything there is the superior option - if available.
-
Jørgen, congrats on you having finally gotten the tool. Hope you enjoy your experiments in IR!
-
I finally got it! It was mostly a matter of me actually getting it shipped to http://www.protechrepairs.co.uk/ which modified the camera and shipped it back to me faster than I expected. I believe it was shipped either on the same day it arrived at their office or the day after. I got it modified with a 590nm Filter.
Not exactly the optimal time to go shooting - it was evening and raining, but here are the first test shots:
[... pics ...]
I have no clue about post processing IR photos, so I have just been fooling around a bit in LR :)
Watching with interest.
-
I got bitten by the IR bug recently after reading this thread several times over. ::)
Had a D200 IR converted by a local shop (in the Philippines) & got it a couple of days ago. I havent had time to make complete test of my new toy but I noticed that the bottom plate seems to be warming up bit. The bottom portion seems to feel a little warm. I was wondering if this was normal?
I tested my D80 for a quick succession of several shots for comparison. It was also warm but not like that of the IR converted D200. Did you guys and gals have any similar experience?
Thanks
-
Can't remember the D200 IR behaved like you describe? It has been retired for a while now (in favour of the D5300), though, but I do know other members still use it for IR.
-
There is mostly air inside the camera underneath the bottom plate of a D200,,,
-
Does a unconverted D200 also warm up ? The suposedly warming up I feel is on the bottom portion opposite of the battery port.
There is mostly air inside the camera underneath the bottom plate of a D200,,,
-
i don't know about cameras or anything super complicated, but in automotive if something is heating up like that then the wiring has a problem. probably a short or ground was not setup properly, old wires, happens sometimes on the ignition part of some older toyotas and drain your batteries :o :o :o
might be useless information but the camera might be trying to say something.
the only thing that I am aware of that actually heats the camera is long exposure and liveview/video.
-
My initial thoughts also that it maybe the wires. does the sensor warm up because of the IR filter attached? It has not come to the point where it becomes uncomfortable to use. But i will be observing it as I use it.
Does having converted the body use up more battery than a standard body?
-
To the last question the answer is a resounding 'NO'.
-
I don't believe the conversion itself causes the heating. The capacitor could be a heat source but would not heat up unless it's about to fail. Does a different battery help?
-
FWIW, I have (self) converted D200 and this does not heat up at all.
It does chew through batteries compared to more modern DSLRs with same battery (e.g. D300, D700) but no more than my other unconverted D200s.
JJ
-
Appreciate all your answers! I may just have to observe it for a while. I had it converted as soon as I got it from an online seller, used but still in good condition. The shutter count was (only) around 39K which I thought still have a lot of life left in it. Converting it to IR would give it a new lease on life. Will try to post some samples soon.
Thanks!