Converting a DSLR camera to IR

[robertom]

Hello, I'd like to buy a DSLR camera and remove its IR filter. I wouldn't do that myself though, I'd like to know if there's a shop in the Cambridge area that does that sort of conversions. Any recommendation?

Thanks in advance.

[rpcrowe]

I had an old Canon D60 (not the newer 60D) converted to full-time IR and it does quite a good job. IMO, except for carrying the extra weight of a full-size 1.6x body, the D60 is a great conversion.



I found the person who converts the camera on eBay at about one hundred U.S. Dollars ($100). I don't remember who did the conversion for me.

One great thing about using a camera that has been converted to IR is that you can see the image in the viewfinder. Using an IR filter precludes that since the IR pass filter seems almost opaque. My exposures with the converted camera incorporate a shutter speed that is hand-holdable. This is not the case when using an IR filter in front of the lens. That way the exposure times need to be quite long and a tripod is needed.

There is a difference in focusing between visible light and infra red. Some companies that do the IR conversion require you to submit the camera with the lens you intend to use, so the focusing can be calibrated. The person who did my conversion did not ask for a lens to be provided but, rather he recommended shooting at f/11 or smaller apertures to ensure of adequate focus.

I have been amiss in testing the following premise but, many older lenses have an IR focus marking.



In the case of the above lens, the standard focus point for visible light focusing is the orange line while the IR focus point is the red dot. The way to use this marking is to focus your camera in the standard way (either auto focus or manual focus) and then, with the lens in manual focus, shift the IR focus point to to spot on the where the standard focus point was. In this case, the standard visible light focus point is approximately 3.5 meters. You would shift the focus to where the red dot was at 3.5 meters.

Unfortunately, most of today's lenses do not incorporate focusing scales or IR focus points. But several of my older lenses, including the 50mm f/1.8 Mark-1 have a focus scale with an IR marking.

If I were back to square-one and wanting a camera for full-time IR work, I think that I would choose and older model bridge camera, simply because of its lighter weight and smaller size. I usually travel with a pair of 1.6x camera bodies and adding the additional IR equipped D60 is not something I look forward to. I really would like a smaller sized and lighter weight IR camera to carry on my vacations.

[Shadowman]

Site has some links that might be outdated.

http://www.redbubble.com/people/pete...as-to-infrared

[Dave Humphries]

Hello, I'd like to buy a DSLR camera and remove its IR filter. I wouldn't do that myself though, I'd like to know if there's a shop in the Cambridge area that does that sort of conversions. Any recommendation?

Thanks in advance.

Hi Robert (just a guess),

Could you do me a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put your first name (Robert/Tom/?) in the Real Name field
and where you are (roughly) in the Location field (Cambridge, UK? or US?),
then click the Save Changes button below and to right,
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant answers - thanks in advance.

I'm afraid I can't help with an answer to your question.

Where were you thinking of buying the camera; s/h off e-Bay (or similar)?
It would also help if we knew a rough budget you had in mind for this project.

I assume you already shoot conventional digital photos and know your way around a DSLR camera, if so, which brand?
I'm thinking; if all else equal, it might be wise to stick to what you know.

Welcome to the CiC forums from me, Dave

[xpatUSA]

Hello, I'd like to buy a DSLR camera and remove its IR filter. I wouldn't do that myself though, I'd like to know if there's a shop in the Cambridge area that does that sort of conversions. Any recommendation?

Thanks in advance.

You could buy any Sigma DSLR except the first model (SD9). Just inside the lens mount, there is an easily removable "dustcover" which is also the UV/IR blocking filter. On the later DSLRs (SD14, SD15, SD1M) it just pops out with a thumbnail.

SD1Ms are still around a grand or so, but SD15, SD14 and SD10 models are pretty cheap used, maybe $100-200). SD10 is very early raw-only camera which might not float your boat.

Cambridge UK or USA?

Here's a "full spectrum" shot (no IR filter on the lens):



It's a Summer shot, not Autumn.

Here's an IR shot with a 720nm filter on the lens:



Most folks do processing with IR shots to take out the red cast, often converting to black and white.

Both images taken raw with a Sigma SD1M.

Good luck with the quest . . .

[Adzman808]

I know nothing about IR conversions, he says posting anyway...

But when people get it done on the fuji forum (usually a XE1, that they've just figured out is not worth selling ) there always follows a slew of advice about lenses with IR hot spots...

Might be something to google if it turns out to be something that influences your chosen body decision for the conversion

[loosecanon]

Cambridge UK
Use Advanced Camera Services, in Watton, Norfolk - as well as major camera repairs the conversion to IR is one of their specialities

[Greg Lehey]

Hello, I'd like to buy a DSLR camera and remove its IR filter.

Why a DSLR? I'm assuming you want to use the camera for IR photography, and by putting an IR filter in front of the lens, you kill the viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras are a better (and maybe cheaper) choice, since the viewfinder normally still works. I've seen a number of people who offer conversions for Olympus cameras, or (probably better) pre-converted cameras. A Google search should help.

I've made a number of attempts at IR photography with my (unmodified) Olympus cameras. The big drawback of unmodified cameras is that the exposure times go up by about 6 stops. But for me, the results just weren't worth it.

[george013]

Why a DSLR? I'm assuming you want to use the camera for IR photography, and by putting an IR filter in front of the lens, you kill the viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras are a better (and maybe cheaper) choice, since the viewfinder normally still works. I've seen a number of people who offer conversions for Olympus cameras, or (probably better) pre-converted cameras. A Google search should help.

I've made a number of attempts at IR photography with my (unmodified) Olympus cameras. The big drawback of unmodified cameras is that the exposure times go up by about 6 stops. But for me, the results just weren't worth it.

He is referring to the filter behind the mirror and the shuttercurtain. You're referring to a filter added to the lens, before the mirror.

I don't know why exactly, but the Nikon D70 is a popular camera to convert to IR.

George

[Dave Humphries]

I'm a simple person and haven't dabbled in IR since my film shooting days 35 odd years ago!

With regard to digital IR shooting, it seems to me there are two-to-three issues;

a) Most 'DSLR' cameras have an IR blocking filter fitted to the sensor (or in lens throat if Sigma)

b) If that is removed, making the camera more sensitive to IR 'light', the fact that normal light still hits the sensor can overwhelm, or at least seriously affect, the results - as per the first image in Ted's post above.

c1) To address b), an IR passing (red) filter (blocking most normal light) can then be attached to the lens - as per the second image in Ted's post above

OR

c2) 'Normal light' colour channels can be reduced in post processing

d) Because colour implicitly means so much to us, many prefer their IR photos converted to monochrome

My brain can comprehend green leaves being bright (e.g. white) in a mono IR photo (often matching the clouds), but a lighter shade of pink in an overall pink photo just doesn't work for me
(although it is instructive for us, as Ted intended above, to see it)

Does that sum it up?
(I'm no expert)

Cheers, Dave

[robertom]

Thank you for all the feedback!

First of all, yes it is Cambridge UK! I didn't specify because I got sidetracked by the name of the website (coloUr?).

Dave, you summed up perfectly the whole thing. Greg Lehey rightly points out that with an IR-pass filter in front of the lens the viewfinder would be useless. That's why I'm going for a DSLR with live view - best option of all.

As for Loosecannon's suggestion to use Advanced Camera Services in Watton, Norfolk, yes, I used them before for a repair and I was happy with their service. I was just hoping to find something closer so I don't have to trek over there, but I know I just ship equipment to them via mail/courier.

Roberto

[Polar01]

The Nikon D70 is popular as it is real easy to convert I understand. I was told when looking at the time for a D90 to save the D70, have it converted to IR as it was simple to do.

Cheers: Allan

[rpcrowe]

I have looked at eBay (both U.S. and U.K. eBay) and it "may" be advantageous to buy a used camera that is already set up for IR than to have a camera reconfigured.

If you presently own a camera and wish to have it converted, you "might" investigate selling that camera on the used market and buying an already configured camera. The bottom line cost "might" be in favor of purchasing an already configured camera.

OTOH, if you already have a camera, you know the condition of that piece of gear. Buying used is often throwing the dice.

I am somewhat sorry that I had a Canon D60 converted. The camera is fine and the facets of the camera that would eliminate it from my consideration as a general purpose camera (low ISO, slower focusing, etc.) do not really impact IR shooting. The problem with earier Canon 1.6x cameras (D30, D60 and 10D) is that they cannot accept EFS lenses. This rules out the use of my favorite and most used lens which is the Canon EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

As I mentioned above, the size and weight of the D60 as opposed to a Canon G series camera (or some other smaller model) often precludes my bringing the D60 on a vacation when weight is an important factor.

[Greg Lehey]

He is referring to the filter behind the mirror and the shuttercurtain. You're referring to a filter added to the lens, before the mirror.

Yes. You need both. There are a number of IR options with modern "system" cameras:

1. Just put an IR pass filter in front of the lens. This is part of what I was talking about above. You can take IR photos, but the exposure time will soar.
2. Remove the IR filter in front of the sensor. This will allow all light in. The results, by themselves, wil be a combination of visible and IR light. I don't know of anybody who does it this way.
3. Remove the IR filter in front of the sensor and put an IR pass filter in front of the lens. This is what I was talking about, and it gives normal exposure times.
4. Remove the IR filter in front of the sensor and put an IR block filter in front of the lens. This way you can also use the camera as it was before the conversion to take visible light photos.

I was personally rather disappointed with IR, so I'm glad I just invested in the IR filter.

Greg

[Greg Lehey]

Greg Lehey rightly points out that with an IR-pass filter in front of the lens the viewfinder would be useless. That's why I'm going for a DSLR with live view - best option of all.

Your choice, of course, but why is this the best option? Most DSLR live view leaves a lot to be desired, whereas mirrorless cameras are designed that way. What model have you chosen?

BTW, I forgot to say that you could have problems with autofocus, though that depends very much on the camera.

Greg

[Greg Lehey]

One great thing about using a camera that has been converted to IR is that you can see the image in the viewfinder. Using an IR filter precludes that since the IR pass filter seems almost opaque. My exposures with the converted camera incorporate a shutter speed that is hand-holdable.

I think you're confusing two things here. See my previous post about the ways of doing things. Without an IR filter in front of the lens, you're mixing IR and visible light. Of course, maybe this is what you want to do, but it's not traditional IR photography.

This is not the case when using an IR filter in front of the lens. That way the exposure times need to be quite long and a tripod is needed.

The exposure increase is due to the filter in front of the sensor. Yes, the IR filter in front of the lens will block out visible light, so it will increase the exposure slightly, but the results are completely different.

There is a difference in focusing between visible light and infra red. Some companies that do the IR conversion require you to submit the camera with the lens you intend to use, so the focusing can be calibrated. The person who did my conversion did not ask for a lens to be provided but, rather he recommended shooting at f/11 or smaller apertures to ensure of adequate focus.

I have been amiss in testing the following premise but, many older lenses have an IR focus marking.

This doesn't quite match my understanding. I too have lenses with an IR focus mark, but they're designed for manual focus. With autofocus this should be unnecessary. In your case, though, where you're using both, you can't get a definite focus (focus for IR and visible light is different), so the advice of using a small stop is good.

Greg

[george013]

Yes. You need both. There are a number of IR options with modern "system" cameras:

1. Just put an IR pass filter in front of the lens. This is part of what I was talking about above. You can take IR photos, but the exposure time will soar.
2. Remove the IR filter in front of the sensor. This will allow all light in. The results, by themselves, wil be a combination of visible and IR light. I don't know of anybody who does it this way.
3. Remove the IR filter in front of the sensor and put an IR pass filter in front of the lens. This is what I was talking about, and it gives normal exposure times.
4. Remove the IR filter in front of the sensor and put an IR block filter in front of the lens. This way you can also use the camera as it was before the conversion to take visible light photos.

I was personally rather disappointed with IR, so I'm glad I just invested in the IR filter.

Greg

It's a interesting thing to experiment with. But I've the idea that when I've seen some of the photo's, I've seen all off them.

George

[John 2]

Roberto, I bookmarked this article some time back when I thought I might have a dabble. The article also recommends ACS but in addition goes into the issue around filters, lens selection and auto focus and gives some useful links.

https://www.ephotozine.com/user/nick...-infrared-4207
.

[rpcrowe]

There are many choices in IR pass filters that can be installed in a digital camera. The Life Pixel website has a great deal of information regarding your choices when it comes to deciding just what type of IR conversion you desire...

http://www.lifepixel.com/

I personally like my IR imagery in B&W



while other photographers enjoy the modified color that is available when deciding on the type of IR conversion to choose.

BTW: Photoshop and possibly other digital image editing programs has a capability to do pseudo infra red.

http://photography.tutsplus.com/tuto...op--photo-6056

KODAK INFRARED CAMOUFLAGE DETECTION FILM

Finally as an interesting bit of trivia that has absolutely no relation to today's infrared digital photo techniques, Kodak once produced an Infrared Camouflage Detection Film for aerial reconaissance photography. This film would produce an image in which live vegetation was rendered in a red color while dead vegetation and pseudo vegetation (like painted tarps and nets) were rendered in black. It was amazing how easy it was for the photo interpreter to detect hidden enemy positions using this film that were virtually undetectable when shot with standard color or black and white films.





Life Pixel is also a well regarded conversion service.

[xpatUSA]

Yes. You need both. There are a number of IR options with modern "system" cameras:

2. Remove the IR filter in front of the sensor. This will allow all light in. The results, by themselves, will be a combination of visible and IR light. I don't know of anybody who does it this way.

Greg

Greg- this type of shooting, the so-called "full-spectrum" method is quite popular with some folks.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_photography

See also the first image in my earlier post. With my Sigma I get sharper captures and some seriously outrageous reds