Is anyone out there using an IR modified DSLR?

i have a student who is using one with good results.

I thought about having mine modified but decided to use filters instead and have been very pleased with my results.

I want to. A friend is using them pretty regularly with great results. Leica is now promoting the IR sensitivity of their M8 for IR photography (Why fit the camera, make people shoot IR. HA!)

I think the new Nikon D40x would be a great camera to modify 'cause it shoots 10mp, and is cheap.

A friend of mine converted a Canon 20D to IR and he is getting great results.

Is anyone out there using an IR modified DSLR?

Yes. Here are some pix I've done with my modifed Canon 20d:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/25258539_96f678c211.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/24376882_f76d114ad6.jpg

Cheers,

Is anyone out there using an IR modified DSLR?

Here is one made with a Canon A75 and an IR filter.

Don Bryant

Michael and Don,
Those are beautiful. Thanks for sharing them.
Maybe I'll think about doing it myself.
Tom

What is involved in modifying a DSLR in this manner? Can any camera be modified?

John

John,

Check this website for a little more info:

http://lifepixel.com/

And a few other links:

http://www.robwilliams.ca/Articles/Digital_Infrared.htm
http://dpfwiw.com/ir.htm

Don

I had a Nikon D100 converted at IR Digital (http://www.irdigital.net/) a few years ago. I like the results. You can check my Verdun Infrared (http://richam.smugmug.com/gallery/608733) or Battle of Actium (http://richam.smugmug.com/gallery/2666806) galleries for typical images. The conversion cost was under $300, as I recall. It works best for me with my old AI manual, fixed focus lenses. Zoom lenses seem to have more focus problems, so need small apertures -- f11 or smaller. Hand held works fine in most situations. Using an IR filter on a non-converted camera often means using a tripod to get good results.

I just had one of my back-up 20D's converted to IR by Lifepixel. It works great, and it's a lot of fun. I used to shoot a little Kodak HIE, but mainly used Konica 750nm which I rated at ISO 12 with a red #25 on a bright sunny day. I've been taking hand held, low light IR with the converted 20D. Even shooting it at ISO 1600 in a dark bar with a flash covered with a visible light blocking filter. At ISO 1600 it looks a lot cleaner than 35mm HIE.

I just had one of my back-up 20D's converted to IR by Lifepixel. It works great, and it's a lot of fun. I used to shoot a little Kodak HIE, but mainly used Konica 750nm which I rated at ISO 12 with a red #25 on a bright sunny day. I've been taking hand held, low light IR with the converted 20D. Even shooting it at ISO 1600 in a dark bar with a flash covered with a visible light blocking filter. At ISO 1600 it looks a lot cleaner than 35mm HIE.

I've been very intriqued with the idea of having a digital camera converted to IR especially since Kodak is going to stop producing HIE (the only IR film worth shooting IMO), however your last line is one that sort of disturbs me. That is the digital IR images that I have looked at online made with converted cameras have a sterile look to me, just too smooth and clean.

I've used a Canon A75 PS with an R72 filter and made some IR exposures that had more of the look of HIE which I suppose is due to the high noise level that camera has when used at ISO 400.

I guess the sad truth is that there will never be a digital equivalent to HIE even after adding digital grain and guasian blur.

Glad to hear the camera is working for you though, I may yet go that route myself.

Don Bryant

this summer i got a fuji s9100 from MaxMAx. It has been converted to enable one to use IR filters, and at the same time see what your looking at and hand hold.

You can also use another filter to take "normal" images if so desired.

It isn't a true DSLR, but it is much lighter than a d100, can be handheld for IR which comes in handy for some projects i would like to do.

On the other hand i have had good success with the D100 and a wratten 89 filter, but the exposures are long and can't see a thing once that filter goes on :)

Kodak B/W HIE IR film. I just don't see these results with digital IR. Though it does seem to be getting better...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2143/1700124927_9faa03099f.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2387/1700963012_559356527f.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/462377128_bff2a3f85a.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3078/2323471600_81aa5b18f5.jpg

I had a Canon G9 converted to IR (720 nm) and liked it so much I decided to have a Canon 50D converted, but went with the 830 nm conversion for sharpness. I like the results with the 50D but the results are not a great improvement over the G9, though I guess it would be useful at a much higher ASA.

Attached are a couple of shots taken with the 50D from a recent visit home to Louisiana. What I found interesting about these shots is that you are seeing down to the floor of the lake, which is about three feet deep at this point.

Sandy

Sandy are these images negatives?

Sandy are these images negatives?

JD,

Yes, I reversed them to enhance the sense of abstraction, though they looked quite abstract before they were reversed.

Sandy

Here is a sample image of digital infared by one of my clients.

Banding not present in the print btw

but went with the 830 nm conversion for sharpness. I like the results with the 50D but the results are not a great improvement over the G9, though I guess it would be useful at a much higher ASA.

Sandy

What type of post processing do you have to do for these images?

Don