IR Conversion bodies (which one?)

[Erik Lund]

Your not the only one here called Bjørn here,,, I have corrected my mistake. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jørgen Ramskov]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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

[Jørgen Ramskov]

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.

[BEZ]

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

[Jørgen Ramskov]

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?

[BEZ]

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

[Erik Lund]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[stenrasmussen]

I agree...there is something about CCD sensors...they are less "woolly" in nature.

[Jørgen Ramskov]

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.

[BEZ]

I am sure you will be very happy  ....I did not want to put you off the idea!

Cheers

[Jørgen Ramskov]

I'm happy for all advice as I know basically nothing about IR

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.