Recommended P&S for dedicated IR?

[emilymiller]

I am looking into purchasing an older, probably used point & shoot digicam for

IR photography. I'm willing to convert it to dedicated IR myself. I would prefer

the camera to be 3+ MP. I've read a number of posts on this site mentioning

different cameras but I wasn't always sure whether people were using IR filters

or had actually converted their cameras. I've seen the Nikon Coolpix 5400, Sony

f707 and Minolta Dimage 7 recommended but again not sure whether that is with a

filter or actually converted.

 

I'm not sure how much I will use the IR camera so don't want to spend a lot of

money at first. A used, beat-up old camera for $150 would be ideal (hey, I can

wish!)

 

Thanks for any recommendations!

Emily

[leicaglow]

I've heard Fuji mentioned as a good option but don't personally know. I seem to have lost some of the bookmarks I was planning to refer you to, but this is a pretty helpful one:

 

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/#NEED

[emilymiller]

Not sure if I was clear about this at first - I'd prefer to convert the camera, rather than use an IR filter, so I can shoot handheld more often.

[godfrey]

An extremely good dedicated IR camera if you can find one would be a Sony F828 converted

to IR use.

 

Godfrey

[emilymiller]

Hi Godfrey, I think the F828 may be a bit out of my price range, but I'm still interested to know what specifically makes it a good IR camera?

[will_f]

I gather you mean you will be removing the IR "cut" filter that's on top of the CCD. I think

you might still have to either replace it with an IR "permissive" filter or use one on the lens.

Unmodded cameras such as the Nikon 990, Olympus C2000, C2020 are sensitve enough

when using the popular Hoya R72 IR filter (on the lens) to be able to take handheld

exposures in good light, but they are only 2mp and you sometimes have to exceed ISO

100, especially when not shooting wide open and full wide angle (in the case of the

C2000; F2 at 33mm (35mm equivalent).

 

Will

[emilymiller]

Yes, I will have to replace the IR filter with a new piece of glass in order for focusing to work correctly. I'll be following instructions like these: http://www.lifepixel.com/ir-tutorials/canon-powershot-g3-digital-infrared-conversion-instructions.htm

 

I believe I can replace the existing filter with an IR-only filter, OR with clear glass that allows infrared PLUS visible light in, and I can then put the appropriate filters on the front of the lens depending on whether I want to shoot IR or visible.

[Brad_]

I've done tons of IR pix (<a href= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images9/IR_Web/">a

few here</a>) with a sony f707 and screw-on B+W 093 filter. That filter's dead black

rejecting visible light and only

passes IR. The cam's "night shot mode" flips the internal IR-block filter out of the way.

[jobo1]

I use a converted Canon S45. I like that it has a RAW mode, since IR work is so far from what the sensor was intended to cope with. It works fine, although I've noticed that Lightroom doesn't let you adjust the white balance far enough. Will need to look elsewhere for a raw converter...

[godfrey]

<i>Emily Miller:<br>

> I think the F828 may be a bit out of my price range, but I'm<br>

> still interested to know what specifically makes it a good IR<br>

> camera?</i><br>

<br>

The Sony F series cameras, all of them, have a "Nightshot" mode which is basically a

mechanism for pulling the IR-Block filter out of the light path and allows them to record

near-IR with an IR-Pass filter (a B+W 092 or 093, like Brad mentioned). They are the digital

cameras that are most sensitive to IR light straight out of the box. The F828 in particular

has the best lens of that series with manual zoom control and RAW format capture. <br>

<br>

The F828 wass one of those odd cameras that is flawed in several ways for normal picture

taking but for some specific work proves to be excellent. IR work is one of the areas in

which it does exceptionally well. <br>

<br>

I did a lot of IR work with both the F707 and F717 as well. They did that very well too, but I

always preferred to use the F828 for its better controls, RAW capture capability, and better

lens. <br>

<br>

Godfrey<br>

[dave_powell2]

Nice suggestions!

 

Emily, when you said "P&S," were you looking for a smaller, more pocketable, camera? If so, be aware that the Sony F-series cameras are large and definitely un-pocketable!

 

That said, I shot many wonderful IR images (tripod mounted, though a blocking filter) using the Minolta Dimage S-414 point-and-shoot. I think a used S-414 would be a superb IR shooter if modded. (I haven't yet found instructions on the web for doing this, though.)

 

Good luck with the quest...and let us know what you do!

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

[howardfuhrman]

I converted a Canon G2 (although I would recommend a G3 or G5 rather than a G2 because the instructions on Lifepixed are for the G3 and G5, not the G2) to IR and have gotten good results. A few of my IR photo's are posted in my small gallery here at photo.net. I purchased the replacement filter from Lifepixel.com. The G2 is a 4MP camera that can shoot in raw, which I believe is an advantage with IR.

 

Good luck with your decision.

[emilymiller]

Wow, thanks everyone for so many great responses!

 

Brad and Godfrey: I'm assuming with the F series cameras you're using, most of your shots are made using a tripod if the camera is not modded? (Those shots that are not in direct bright sunlight). I'd rather modify the camera and be able to take handheld shots with it in sun or shade, like a visible light camera.

 

My question would be, if I modify the F series, will it still be a better IR camera than a modified Canon G3, S45, etc? It seems to me that once you remove the IR-blocking filter from a camera, it loses any advantages it has over other cameras before modification. Are there other issues that would make one modified camera better than another?

 

For example, are hot spots a problem with any of your cameras, or is that more an issue with IR DSLRs?

 

Johannes: Were you able to set a custom WB on the S45 on bright green grass, and Lightroom still wouldn't adjust far enough? I use Adobe Camera Raw, probably not much of a difference though.

 

And Dave, yes, the F series is quite a bit bigger (and pricier!) than I was envisioning, but I'm keeping an open mind about it! Actually the G3 and S45 were more like what I had in mind, but I'm trying not to make my decision before I finish learning about the issue.

[emilymiller]

To clarify regarding this sentence: <i>"Are there other issues that would make one modified camera better than another?"</i> I meant IR-specific issues - not RAW capability, lens quality, etc.

[Brad_]

>>> I'm assuming with the F series cameras you're using, most of your shots are made

using a tripod if the camera is not modded?

 

Emily, no, all of the shots in my link were done handheld. That's what's nice about the

sony f

cams.

 

In "nightshot mode," the cam's internal IR-block filter swings out of the light path. That

makes the camera very sensitive to IR. And then when you put on an external B+W 093, all

visibile light is rejected. Now, there are some limitations (max shutter speed, etc) sony put

in to deal with some issues, but compared to any other non-modded camera, it is hugely

more sensitive to IR, making a tripod (mostly) unnecessary.

 

BTW, sony is coming out with a new cam next month, the H9, which also has that

nightshot

mode. Looking forward to evaluating that for IR. Also has a 3" LCD screen that swivels -

really nice.

 

And, Fuji will be soon coming out with the IS-1, which also looks great for IR. More money

though...

[dave_powell2]

Hey thanks for the heads-up on the H9, Brad! I'll look at it too. Unfortunately, the last time I tested a Sony P&S with Nightshot mode, it had the strong hot-spot problem that Emily was asking about. Loved it though, so maybe the H9 will fare better!

 

And to answer your question, Emily, the S-414 had absolutely no hot spot whatever (and I forgot to mention that it is 4MP).

 

Oh, and following onto Brad's statement, the un-modded Sony F-series cameras are truly extraordinarily sensitive to IR in Nightshot mode. That's because Sony never bothered to implement the ability to set Nightshot apertures, as was once rumored for the 828. So the cameras shoot Nightshot with the aperture open to the max, at about 1/60 sec. On the cameras with an f/2 lens, this means that you must stack some ND filters with the IR filter, to avoid blowing out the sensor!

 

I once borrowed a friend's F-717, and was able to shoot wonderful IRs hand-held. The only problem was that I didn't know to cover the IR focusing windows with black tape...so I had to clone out a V-shaped flares in every image that I used!

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

[emilymiller]

Thanks Brad and Dave for further info. Brad, those IR shots are great, and it's very encouraging to hear they were all handheld. I didn't realize the Sony Fs were THAT sensitive! The price difference between a Sony F and cheaper camera would probably be made up by having to buy the mod kit for the cheaper camera. Size is still an issue for me though, I'll have to think about it.

 

Dave, did both the 828 and 717 have the hot spot?

 

Howard & Johannes: any hot spot problems with your converted IR Canons?

 

I found a few used Dimage 414s for around $80, hard to pass up! Looks like the only downside would be no RAW, but there is a custom WB setting. I'd be a bit bummed out if I broke it trying to convert it (I couldn't find instructions online either), but less bummed than breaking a $200 Canon!

[Brad_]

>>> That's because Sony never bothered to implement the ability to set Nightshot

apertures, as was once rumored for the 828. So the cameras shoot Nightshot with the

aperture open to the max, at about 1/60 sec.

 

A little history on that. In nightshot mode, the cam defaults to max aperture at 1/60 max

shutter speed. The reason, apparently, is some claimed with previous nightshot

(video) cams that one could see through

bathing suits on the beach in nightshot mode. By forcing that combination, it was virtually

impossible for the average consumer to

shoot in reasonably bright light.

 

So, as Dave pointed out, you need to carry a couple of screw-on ND filters to cover a range

of potential IR shooting situations. I sure hope sony doesn't limit the H9 similarly. OTOH,

I'm

pretty jazzed about the prospect of a 3" swivel LCD (though that's not as nice as a swivel

body like the f cams). The 15x zoom is pretty dopey...

[howardfuhrman]

Brad,

 

I took a look at your IR portfolio that you referred to above and they are great.

[dave_powell2]

Hi Again, Emily,

 

Sorry I didn't get back to this thread until now.

 

No, neither the 717 or 828 had hot spots that I could see. The only similar problem was that they used a couple of IR-emitting ports for auto focusing. And if those aren't covered with black tape, the resulting images often had white "V's" painted through them.

 

This was caused (I believe) when the emitted IR returned to the camera and bounced back and forth between the IR and ND filter surfaces. (A corollary was that after I covered the ports with tape, I used manual focus for IR.)

 

But that done, hand-holding was possible...or almost as convenient, monopoding.

 

(The Sony on which I saw severe hot spots was one of their pocketable point-and-shoots...either the T10 or T30. A shame too, they are nice cameras...but didn't seem ideal for IR!)

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave