eric_boutilier_brown1

<p>Full frame has less depth of field for the same angle of view and aperture, needs more accurate focus, has heavier lenses for the same angle of view. Full frame is heavier, and more $$.</p>

<p>IR at night would be hard, unless you had an IR rich light-source in the image (like tungsten light). If you made a night image of a landscape, I doubt much would result after hours of exposure, as there is no IR light to see. On the other hand, IR is not just for a bright day - I have used it (more often than not in fact) on overcast days - and there is tons of IR light at sunset (red ones, at least)...and then when the sun is down, it is all gone, quite suddenly.</p>

<p>Your solution would be great for long lenses, but impractical for anything approaching wide...even with a bag-bellows, it'd be impossible to achieve infinity focus with the camera design (not to mention finding a 20mm lens that is practical for your camera design...). A good beginning though...and if you like long lenses, it's perfect.</p>

<p>You are correct - in simple terms - Expose for the highlights, process for the shadows.</p>

<p>I've been using the 17mm since it came out in early June, and can honestly say that a hood would be next to useless - to cover the possible angles of view of the lens, it would have to be so wide to barely protect the lens from flare.<br>

In regards to flare, there's a couple of things to say. The lens does flare, but it is some of the best controlled flare I have ever seen, unless the sun is in the image. When the sun is in the frame, flare is certainly prominent, but still well controlled, all the same.<br>

When working with the lens in contrasty light, I have used my hand, hat, or any other convenient item to block the light from hitting the lens. It should be noted I do this often with other lenses, as hoods are seldom perfect.<br>

If you wanted a perfect solution, and were patient, then an articulated arm and flag of some sort would be idea, but I prefer the simplicity of a hand, hat or whatever is on hand.</p>

<p>I am currently on my fourth IR DSLR (Sigma SD10, Nikon D70, D80, Canon 5D MKII), with three of the four being converted by LifePixel, so my comments are based on converted cameras, not using a filter.<br>

* I'm noticing pretty significant flare.<br>

I don't get any more flare with the IR DSLRs than with a normal DSLR, but what I do have issues with (especially with apertures like f/16) is hotspots - miscoloured (in colour IR image) areas of lighter density in the centre of the frame. This occurs with some lenses more than others, and more often below f/8 - so with IR images, I don't work below f/8 (and you should keep in mind, with the 10D, f/16 will cause you some significant loss of image quality due to diffraction).<br>

* Sharpness and detail really seem to suffer<br>

My IR images are significantly sharper than images made with my non-converted camera - I've assumed with is the lack of the AA filter, but also, all three colours (RGB) are seeing a narrow wavelength of light, leading to a more even focus distance (unlike normal cameras, where often Red is mis-focused slightly, except in high quality or APO lenes. This could also be a focus error, as IR will NOT AF in most cases with most lenses, so focus testing is required. With the 5D MKII I use LiveView to focus, and it is a godsend. Also, in regard to sharpenss, f/16 would cause loss of sharpeness due to diffraction (see above).<br>

* I should note that corner sharpness suffers the most<br>

Can't comment on this - might be a reflection off the AA filter perhaps? Never seen this.<br>

Hope some of the above helps!<br>

More info about my experience using IR DSLRs can be found on my website http://evolvingbeauty.com/index.php/evolving/techPost/infrared_basics/</p>

<p>I too used to use Extensis Portfolio, and now use Lightroom - Portfolio was nice, but Lightroom is amazing, both for image management (cataloging) and basic processing. Photoshop still trumps for final print-ready files, but for basic editing and image adjustment, Lightroom can do it all, and keep track of 100,000 images with ease!</p>

<p>I had lifepixel convert a D80, and after I adjusted the AF (for a 50mm f/1.4 at 4' for portraits) it was perfect...the RGB histogram is a must, and the image quality was very good at 200 ISO...noise built up quicky after that. A bit more about the camera is on my website here - http://evolvingbeauty.com/index.php/evolving/techPost/infrared_digital_d80/</p>

<p>I had them convert a D80 to IR two years ago, and was very pleased with their work (though adjusted the AF myself, as it didn't match my 50mm lens). Be aware each lens will almost certainly focus differently, and you likely will have to focus bracket or test focus for most lenses.</p>

<p>The D300 has only RAW or JPEG as file formats, so it sounds like you made an image in RAW, and then converted it to a TIFF image, which is what you are viewing. You can re-open the RAW file in your RAW processor (PS, Lightroom, Aperture etc, or Nikon's software) and do some highlight recovery, to see if you can restore your highlight tones.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>A quick web search would indicate this is not a troll - http://spencerscamera.com/default.aspx<br>

I have not used the company in question, but they are the first company I have heard of who convert Sony DSLRs. Their prices are inline with Livepixel who I have used twice for IR conversions, and their website is informative and detailed, so I'd say they are legit...</p>

Some non-nude IR images (Nikon D80) from a trip I did to Scotland last

summer.<div></div>

<p>I second the suggstion of VueScan - I use it with a Nikon 8000, with no problem!</p>

<p>The simple answer is that different lenses (even with the same focal length) have different close-focus distances. The Canon 28-105mm focuses to 1.6 feet, the Canon 28mm f/1.8 focuses to 0.8 feet, and the 28mm f/2.8 focuses to 1 foot. All the same focal legth, same company, different minimum focus distance.</p>

<p>I have the lens, and a MK II, and have no complaints over the AF accuracy. The speed of the AF is very slow, as the reviews say, but when it is in focus, it is REALLY in focus, it is sharp beyond belief.</p>

<p>The moment I saw the 17mm T/S announced, I re-evaluated my plan to got the Zeiss EF 21mm...the 17mm is wider, whichi s always my preference, but with shift, it could easily avoid the convergence that is such an issue with super-wides - yes, you can correct it in PS, but that looses resolution, and assuming the 17mm is as sharp as it COULD be, I'd take it in a heat-beat over the 21mm Zeiss. The tilt is less usefull, as was already stated, but on small format bodies, that is true of most wides...but shift woul dbe awesome to be able to use on a lens as wide as a 17mm!</p>

<p>I use 3 16gb cards in my 5D MK II, without any problems. In RAW, you will get about 565 RAW files on the 14.9 GB the camera sees the card as. I once got almost 700 images on a card, so that is only an average.</p>

<p>The G10 came out after the release of CS4 was announced, so G10 RAW files will never be able to be opened directly in CS3. You can downlow the DNG converter, which will convert your G10 RAW files to DNG, which will then open in CS3...a workaround, but free, vs. buying CS4. Lightroom 2.2 will also open G10 RAW files...</p>

Carsand-Mosher, the largest photo retailer in Atlantic Canada, received a single camera on Tuesday...more are expected to come each week, until the pre-orders are filled, and stock is on the shelves...

This is already happening, only 5 years away from making images. My original EOS 10D files look much better today, with newer RAW processors (and better processing skills, don't forget those as well).

Ernest Hemingway: "Good pictures, what camera do you use?"

Irving Penn: "What typewriter do you use?"

A lot would depend on what you like to photography...Peggy's Cove is was too touristy for most, but if landscape is your thing, skip it anway, and go to Prospect, and walk the 3-4 miles of the shore towards sunset, it is well worth the time. If you wish more picturesque towns, I second Mahone Bay, Lunenburg and even Shelburne, if you are going through the South Shore. On the eastern shore there is a restored village at Sherbrooke, if you like historical re-enactments...and of course there is Halifax...

The Nikon D50 was released after CS3 was released, so RAW files from a D50 cannot be opened in CS2. The above post has it right though, as the current DNG converter can change your NEF to DNG, which can be opened in CS2.

I ownthe D300 and have been using it with a 50mm f/1.4 often...at the largest aperture, and down to about f/2.0, there is a fair bit of flare/contrast loss, but nothing that can't be taken care of in post processing. The thing to realize is that the f/1.8 is only 2/3 of a stop slower, and about 1/3 of the cost...so basically unless you want shallow depth of field, I'd choose the f/1.8 - 2/3 of a stop exposure correction won't make much of a difference to your image quality...

I use a Sigma 10-20 lens with my IR D80 - it works fine, except for the focus issue - I have to bracket the focusing when shooting, which works fine, once you edit through the volume!