Coming from my 2nd IR camera, a Rebel XT and Since moving up to FF on my "color" cameras Ive enjoyed the bigger viewfinder and much more accurate focusing screen.
My XT is getting old and the though of moving up to an older 5d seemed reasonable
but after looking at how much they still are, PLUS I would want a grip, theyre pretty expensive! So much so, I thought- How much are the 1Ds MkI's going for?
Theyre about the same price, or less than the 5D's (obviously older but a much better build...)
So does anyone have any feedback on the 1Ds as a IR camera?
Specifically IR sensitivity, ISO performance (XT is limited to about 400, Id love to be able to go higher, and I know the 5D is remarkable even into ISO 3200...) and comparing the screens, the XT isnt much better than the 1Ds anyway, but the 5D screen would be nice!
I know theres a ton of people who've converted 5D's but 1Ds' are a little unheard of. (ive been in the DIR since those first web posts of self converted 300D's and did both my own conversions, until my IR locked up and I had it sent to a repair place who ended up replacing the filter with a life pixel one...)
5D converted by LifePixel is the way I'm going. I've had a 10D converted by Maxmax and now shoot an Xti converted by LifePixel. I want to do some serious full-frame IR and print 16x20 or thereabouts so 5D seems the way to go for me. I've also owned two 5D bodies at the same time when I was doing studio work and they give out gorgeous files.
I find my IR work is almost exclusively landscape and on a tripod so no reason to go for high ISOs...I'm looking for the best IQ I can get.
so youd say the IQ on the 5D is superior to the 1Ds files?
Also - comparing the "Sizes and Timing" review on DPReview.com, the 1Ds, although a great camera, is seriously lacking in hardware horse power. 1.3 seconds to turn on, 3 seconds to review a RAW file and 6 seconds to flush a Raw file. The 5D is about 1/2 or less of each of those times...
Seems like it was a great camera with an oversized / overpowered sensor in it.
5D it is I guess
first, nice shots. Second, why is the D200 the best? It's not a camera that is known for high IQ, in color anyway, and is relatively trounced by the 5d, so I'm interested in the specifics. What is the "something special" (emphasis mine) of the CCD and IR that can't be duplicated elsewhere?
I'm assuming the D300 (a much better color camera) is not as suitable since it's CMOS, is that correct?
Well, visible light (color in your example) and IR light are two different things. Yes correct, I would use a D300 or D700 for many reasons before I reached for my D200 for color work...and the ergonomics of the later (newer) cameras are better too. No question from me on that.
For whatever reason, the CCD sensors are better IR cameras than CMOS sensors - it has been a while since I have tried to explain why...but as I remember it, CCD sensors are simply more sensitive to IR light...while CMOS sensors are less so.
I have a 5D II that I love for color work...great camera. So for me, whether Canon or Nikon does not matter - I reach for whatever tool does the job (ford, chevy etc - whatever gets me there).
You might want to read the archives of the NikonGear.com discussion group, particularly the IR/UV section:
There is much discussion (albeit about Nikon bodies/lenses) for what combos are best - remember some lenses create "hot spots" when used for IR while others do not...so check out what lenses folks use and like for IR.
You might also try this yahoo group: Infrared Photography
But the NikonGear IR group is the best that I have read...
Finally, I recently saw some nice IR's images from the D300 - even though many of us assumed that it could not produce IR images as good as the ones from a D200 (as you indicate the CCD sensor of the D200 vs the CMOS sensor of the D300) - but if you read the NikonGear section, you will see examples that left many of us scratching our heads - because the images produced run counter to the theory in our collective minds...
As a Optical App Engineer, I know that CCDs are better, than CMOS for IR because of the quantum efficiency of the sensor to IR Light - CCDs also get a bit farther into the IR spectrum...
But telling me I should get a nikon is just STUPID
I have a full set of Canon lenses. Im SURE I am going to get a nikon just for the fact they use an older - noiser CCD than Canons CMOS.
youve GOT to be kidding me.
And I use high frame rate for AEB, cause, its IR and usually isnt correct, so i bracket 1/3-2/3 of a stop on each side and pick the best.
You can also use Nikon lenses on Canon bodies - some of the older AIS lenses make wonderful IR capture lenses (while others and some of the newer ones including Nikon/Canon do not): they sometimes create hot spots - light bouncing around the innards of the lens and striking the sensor looks much like flare.
The other thing to look for in getting a camera for IR is the type of LCD readout: for example the old Nikon D70 that was easily converted to IR by LifePixel (and anyone else) has one combined RBG (averaged) readout/display. Not so good - you want the readout that clearly shows the three channels - often in IR one of the channels (usually red) is blown out - and this is easily seen in the three channel display...
In the fine examples of IR images from different cameras above, though tough to judge because they are jpegs and small size for the web, it appears the third image (taken by the 5D MK II) lacks tones/details in the grassy area on the bottom left (below the cabin). It is difficult to tell if this is an exposure issue, a jpeg compression issue - or that the sensor of the 5D II "cuts off" above a certain wavelength...On the other hand the last image (taken with a Fuji S3 with the Coastal Optics 60mm lens - optimized for IR and UV) retains tones in the grass - and most of the foliage on the trees - notorious for "blowing out" in IR photos (and also dependent upon which type of conversion one has done by LifePixel).
When you have the conversion done by Lifepixel, check their work closely - I had some issues a couple of years ago with them - basically I lost a channel after their conversion - lots of strange colors on my LCD...but not the IR I was accustomed to seeing there! After a couple of returns to them, they fixed the problem...so do check their work. Ultimately it turned out fine for me via LifePixel - but they did a number on the rubber that surrounds the camera body...that issue still persists to this day.
Finally, I have learned that doing a color temp reading/white balance for the specific lighting condition (scene) you are shooting is very handy...balancing grey off the grass makes for as good a histogram as one can get...and since I shoot at 200 asa I have not had any noise issues...but I usually tip-toe through the landscape anyway.
kodakeos wrote:
Coming from my 2nd IR camera, a Rebel XT and Since moving up to FF on my "color" cameras Ive enjoyed the bigger viewfinder and much more accurate focusing screen.
My XT is getting old and the though of moving up to an older 5d seemed reasonable
but after looking at how much they still are, PLUS I would want a grip, theyre pretty expensive! So much so, I thought- How much are the 1Ds MkI's going for?
Theyre about the same price, or less than the 5D's (obviously older but a much better build...)
So does anyone have any feedback on the 1Ds as a IR camera?
Specifically IR sensitivity, ISO performance (XT is limited to about 400, Id love to be able to go higher, and I know the 5D is remarkable even into ISO 3200...) and comparing the screens, the XT isnt much better than the 1Ds anyway, but the 5D screen would be nice!
I know theres a ton of people who've converted 5D's but 1Ds' are a little unheard of. (ive been in the DIR since those first web posts of self converted 300D's and did both my own conversions, until my IR locked up and I had it sent to a repair place who ended up replacing the filter with a life pixel one...)...Show more →
Why the need to go FF?
I'm sure the 5D would make a fine IR cam (its a great normal cam) but I dont get some of your requirements.
You say you want a grip. Why? are you walking around shooting or are you tripoding it? if you are tripoding it I see no requirement for a Grip.
You say you want the bigger VF that a 5D gives. Thats fine but even better would be the Liveview that a XSi/40D/50D gives. The latter could also give you a better focus screen as well. (and Live view would give you more accurate focusing wouldn't it?)
If you are hell bent on a FF then I would vote for the 5D, unless you can find a Kodak /C
but thats very slow
rdcny wrote:
Well, visible light (color in your example) and IR light are two different things. Yes correct, I would use a D300 or D700 for many reasons before I reached for my D200 for color work...and the ergonomics of the later (newer) cameras are better too. No question from me on that.
For whatever reason, the CCD sensors are better IR cameras than CMOS sensors - it has been a while since I have tried to explain why...but as I remember it, CCD sensors are simply more sensitive to IR light...while CMOS sensors are less so.
I have a 5D II that I love for color work...great camera. So for me, whether Canon or Nikon does not matter - I reach for whatever tool does the job (ford, chevy etc - whatever gets me there).
You might want to read the archives of the NikonGear.com discussion group, particularly the IR/UV section:
There is much discussion (albeit about Nikon bodies/lenses) for what combos are best - remember some lenses create "hot spots" when used for IR while others do not...so check out what lenses folks use and like for IR.
You might also try this yahoo group: Infrared Photography
But the NikonGear IR group is the best that I have read...
Finally, I recently saw some nice IR's images from the D300 - even though many of us assumed that it could not produce IR images as good as the ones from a D200 (as you indicate the CCD sensor of the D200 vs the CMOS sensor of the D300) - but if you read the NikonGear section, you will see examples that left many of us scratching our heads - because the images produced run counter to the theory in our collective minds...
Thanks for the links! I'm a Canon guy, so I'll have to work with what I've got. Buying a D200 and lenses doesn't sound as appealing as converting a 5d, but clearly as you pointed out, the 5d2 shot appears to lack detail in the grass. It's just so hard to judge IQ from a small jpeg.
it drives me nuts sometimes when people post a small 800x600 image and ask "what's wrong with this shot"? My first thought is, "Everything, beginning with you posting a jpeg"! Alas, that would be impolitic I suppose.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Why the need to go FF?
I'm sure the 5D would make a fine IR cam (its a great normal cam) but I dont get some of your requirements.
You say you want a grip. Why? are you walking around shooting or are you tripoding it? if you are tripoding it I see no requirement for a Grip.
You say you want the bigger VF that a 5D gives. Thats fine but even better would be the Liveview that a XSi/40D/50D gives. The latter could also give you a better focus screen as well. (and Live view would give you more accurate focusing wouldn't it?)
If you are hell bent on a FF then I would vote for the 5D, unless you can find a Kodak /C
but thats very slow...Show more →
Would you seriously want to use a crop camera over a FF one? IR is often a landscape situation and the 5d will beat any crop camera IMO (notable exceptions to this are the lack of live view). If I remember correctly (and I haven't checked in quite a while), the 10-22, a fine lens otherwise, does not work well for IR and produces hotspots, effectively making larger FOVs difficult.
I had a 50D converted to 830nm IR by maxmax. I'm hoping to get it back from Lifepixel soon since I had it converted back to original.
The smaller higher density sensor combined with the deeper IR filter made a bad combination. Most lenses available are challenged by IR usage. Some do quite well some do terribly. Having a full frame sensor and decreased pixel pitch seems to be a big help for IR work. If you could get your hands on a lens specifically made for IR work that would help too. Something worth keeping in mind is that the autofocus is affected by using IR. Having the ability to adjust the autofocus by the user is a plus unless you intend to shoot landscapes which give you time to do live views. The metering is also affected. For IR a camera with a full frame ccd sensor of 12 mp or so would be a great combination.
If you really want a 1 series have you considered a 1DMK2. They can be acquired for a very low price and the 1.3 crop still provides a bright viewfinder.
rdcny wrote:
It is difficult to tell if this is an exposure issue, a jpeg compression issue - or that the sensor of the 5D II "cuts off" above a certain wavelength
Jpeg compression and PP issue. The 5D MKII and 5D have no problems with IR wavelengths I often use a Heliopan RG1000 filter to go deep into IR. The shots on the 5D MKII was one that was converted to Full Spectrum.
Thanks for the link its been a very long time since I was over there, that site has such knowledgable people, Klaus, Vivek, Bjorn. It was seeing Bjorn and Klaus' work that got me interested in UV photography and digital IR photography.
As much as I love my 5D MKII and previously 5D MKI converted cameras the Fujifilm sensor is more sensitive to both IR and UV, this has been shown to me when shooting with the Coastal Optics on each of the bodies. At wider apertures the Fujifilm is sharper and has more exposure latitude than the 5Ds. The 5Ds one has to top down a little to get the same sharpness.
I agree no one should disregard using adapters and mounting alternate lens for IR. There are some really good non Canon lens.
xrayvision wrote:
Most lenses available are challenged by IR usage. Some do quite well some do terribly.
I did some testing with my lens collection for IR with IR modded camera, with B+W 093(True IR) filter mounted and Heliopan RG1000 filter mounted. This list is by no means scientific but here are my results
No hotspots
Canon 35L, 50L 1.0, 50 1.8, 85L, 135 SF, 135L, 180L macro, 400L 5.6
Zeiss 25 ZF-IR, 50 ZF-IR, 85 ZF-IR
Coastal Optics 60 APO
Nikon 28 1.4, 70-180 macro zoom, 85 PC-D, 105 UV, 135 DC
Voigtlander 40
Leica R 100 APO macro, 180 APO 2.8
With Heliopan RG1000 hot spots start above F11
Canon 17-40L, 24L MKII, 24L T+S MKII, 50 2.5 macro, 90 T+S,100 macro non USM
B+W 093 hot spots start above F11
Canon 50L 1.2, 50-200L, 70-200L 4 non IS
Nikon 28mm Series E
IR modded camera R715/R720 in front of sensor these lens had problems and are not recommended
Canon 45 T+S, 50 1.4
Leica R 19,70-180 APO, 90 APO
Zeiss 21,50 1.4
Voigtander 125 - starts to hot spot around F11
All the other lens I have didn't hot spot until above F16 on the I modded camera
Thanks Burningheart - I learned much reading your posts...That is some collection of lenses - especially the Coastal Optics and the Voigtlander 125...and even the lowly Nikon 28mm Series E
xrayvision wrote:
I had a 50D converted to 830nm IR by maxmax. I'm hoping to get it back from Lifepixel soon since I had it converted back to original.
The smaller higher density sensor combined with the deeper IR filter made a bad combination.
Can you post some examples from that 50D conversion ?
A few years ago I had my 10D converted by MaxMax and liked their work so much that I'm planning to send my 50D to them for the 830nm conversion. If that sensor is unable to produce better IR images than I've gotten from my 10D then I'll want to rethink my plan.
greggn wrote:
Can you post some examples from that 50D conversion ?
A few years ago I had my 10D converted by MaxMax and liked their work so much that I'm planning to send my 50D to them for the 830nm conversion. If that sensor is unable to produce better IR images than I've gotten from my 10D then I'll want to rethink my plan.
I am making large prints from the files and find the detail to be lacking. Even though I was careful not to stop down more than f8 on the 50mm f1.8 there seems to be some diffraction. A 720nm conversion may work better. Another thing is that the 830nm filter gets the IR into the less sensitive range of the sensor so the exposures are significantly longer. The smaller sensor of the 50D means it needs to be extra steady so shutter bounce even on a strong tripod can be a problem. I went to Utah and Arizona with it and even on bright days I found shutter speeds too slow unless I upped the ISO. That is another problem. The noise in the 50D with the IR filter was unacceptable over ISO 320 in my experience. Even at 200 it started giving sky noise. I had a 30D with a 720 IR filter at one time and I it had no such problems. It produced better images than the 50D + 830. Don't let the megapixel count of the 50D throw you off. The 30D with the 720 filter made at least as detailed if not more detailed prints than the 50D with a 830 filter.
If I was going to make another IR camera it would be a 5D with a 720 filter. 5D's are super cheap now on ebay. In my opinion maxmax should not continue to offer the 830 on the 50D. It sucked to put it mildly. I lucked out when lifepixel offered the $280 year end conversion special. I also was fortunate to have asked maxmax to send me the IR block/anti aliasing filter with piezo dust remover back to me after the conversion. I sent it to lifepixel to rescue the camera from the 830nm IR filter. They will not send you the filter they took out unless you ask them for it. I had to send the 50D back to maxmax after the conversion since he forgot to adjust the auto focus to IR. When I first got it back it was so far off that even with the micro adjust to the limit it would not come close to hitting auto focus correctly. Back when I sent in the 30D it came back dead on.
My advice is a full frame such as a 5D - very very cheap at this time. If you need to go lower in cost a 40D will beat the 50D due to lower noise if the ISO needs to go past 320.
The hot spots in the lenses is one problem. Diffraction is another. I found the 135L to be the best IR lens as far as resolving power. Of course its a super lens in visible spectrum too so not too big a surprise. And no hotspots. I never stop any lens down past f/8 to f?13 when using IR. Diffraction caused by small apertures in visible light is more pronounced in IR.
