What camera should I convert to Infrared?

[@ibrahimonurcakr8713]

This is great even as a regular camera buying guide. I love how methodological and clean these videos are.

[@karolaneuer5506]

If you are looking for used Nikon mirrorless cameras, I would throw in cameras from the Nikon 1 series. These have been discountinued meanwhile, are really cheap to get and still have a decent image quality while having the ability to shoot raw. Additionally they are small, more like a compact camera with the ability to change lenses. Downside: The image sensor is pretty small, but in broad daylight this doesn't matter. This was my first converted camera and it was nice to start IR photography with it.

[@sunglint]

What an amazingly concise and informative video. I've been researching this exhaustively for a week or so, and you summed it all up in 14 minutes, and then some. Subbed!

[@robshea]

Thanks so much. Good luck with the conversion!

[@MrBillkaz]

Did you finally decide on one if you don't mind me asking

[@sunglint]

@@MrBillkaz I chose to convert my Sony A6500, I used LifePixel after they sent a significant discount coupon over the holidays. I got the full spectrum conversion. I did have an issue with camera errors, but they went away. I bought a 65mm ICE filter at the same time, so I can use the camera normally, or with IR filters.

[@ivarnordlkken8082]

I own a fullspectrum Pentax K-01. It takes amazing photos and videos in IR and passable photos in UV. Just waiting for the next summer.

[@billkennon319]

For UV I find filters are a mixed bag. I use a full spectrum KF and have had some good, some mixed, results in UV. It's a journey!

[@BackFocus11]

You’re on a roll with this channel Rob!! I just got my medium format GFX-50s converted to full spectrum by LifePixel recently. Images to come!!

[@robshea]

Oh, now your just teasing me! 😉 Which lens are you planning to use? Have you found any good sources of for which GFX lens work well for IR?

[@Ni5ei]

I was lucky with my lenses. I was already using a Tamron 17-28 2.8 Di III RXD, a Tamron 28-75 2.8 Di III RXD and a Samyang 45 1.8 AF and when I converted a Sony A7 to IR, it turned out all these lenses are great for IR.

[@mikereilly2745]

I believe , In the past , Tamron actually produced the glass elements ''lenses'' for some of the best complete lenses available from , Nikon, cannon , Fuji , Olympus , Minolta and others . Many Tamron lenses , I have seen equal to the big names.

[@victorcarmelo8606]

I made the mistake of converting the Sony NEX3n, this camera has no viewfinder and very difficult to use in bright sun as sometimes it can be impossible to view the LCD screen. Apart from that difficulty its a great little camera which gives great results. Thinking of selling it and covert my old NEX7, almost same size but with a viewfinder. Thanks Rob always enjoy your videos and tutorials.

[@prancypooch9694]

Your videos on IR photography are clear, concise and non cluttered. You have the most complete overview of software editing programs I have seen. My concern in camera selection is white balance. I know you prefer to do it in post processing, but I am trying to keep this as simple and time saving as possible. I see so many videos about using LR, DNG, and Photoshop and a long workflow from my perspective that is too time consuming. I converted a Canon Powershot G 12 665nm (easy to do yourself compared to others) that actually takes decent photos. Most important, it will white balance flawlessly and allow me to see the exposure precisely and get a feel for the contrast present. I have a Nikon D600 that I was thinking about converting, but it will not WB with a #25 Red filter. It will only take deep orange. In camera WB is a big time saver for me with shooting JPEG that is one more proces to not worry about. I have a nice selection of Nikon lenses, but am intrigued by the Fujifilm X-T1 IR that is still sold new for $850 and needs no conversion. Any WB problems on Fujifilm cameras? I was thinking of just using a lens adapter. Yes, all would be manual, but I shot and printed Kodak HSIR-135 film for years. Outstanding job on your videos. Greatly appreciated!!

[@robshea]

Thank you for your kind words! If you are shooting raw, whether you WB in-camera or when developing is a personal choice. If you are shooting in JPG, then getting the WB close in-camera is important. I WB when shooting with my Kolari Pocket. If you are looking to shorten your workflow, consider creating an Enhanced Profile for use in LR, these LUT-based profiles can save a great deal of time. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIrOZ32oYpWUlas They allow me to apply a color swap directly when importing infrared images into LR. I can then see a color swapped preview of every image for rating and culling. This is a big time saver for me in culling, as I now spend less time editing images that I ultimately reject. I can then invest a moderate amount of time in LR for social media only images, and more time on PS for my best images. The Fujifilm X-T1 IR is an interesting option. Although, it's a bit overpriced at this point. A used X-T1 in excellent condition can be had for $300, add a $275 conversation, and you get the same result for $575. Step up to an X-T2 or X-T20 with their higher resolution sensor, and you can get those converted for a total cost of around the same price as the X-T1 IR. I have both an X-T2 and X-T20, they are great cameras. I've had no issues with WB of infrared images on these Fujifilm cameras, whether shooting my 590nm-converted X-T20 or the unconverted X-T2 with an external filter. I've been doing a lot of shooting on vintage lenses lately using adapters. I prefer the manual aperture and focus when shooting infrared anyway. I've been loving the ability to mount a wide variety of lenses on mirrorless bodies. If you already have a number of Nikon lenses, go mirrorless!

[@prancypooch9694]

@@robshea Great WB info and recommendation on the Fiji. X-T2 larger sensor will be the pick :) You are so generous with your time, but there is one other concern I have. IR can be sneaky and bleed easily, and I wonder if you have experienced a problem with adapters in this regard. Really cool that you experiment with vintage lenses. There are some gems out there that are old world works of construction and optical beauty. That in itself would make a great video especially with a hotspot - flare issue comparison of older designs vs today's ultra coated lens elements. I also enjoy manual mechanical camera control of photography. It develops a more immersive and intimate photographic process with a greater intuitive sense of maximizing creative potential. Back in the day, that was the only way you could nail IR film exposure with its steep gamma curve. Again, thanks for the comprehensive course you have created on the subject of IR photography. It is like taking a college course without having to go to the classroom :)

[@prancypooch9694]

@@robshea Failed to mention in the post, Enhanced Profile batch process great solution. Yes, it is just like looking at your film negatives that can be culled quickly. Also a plus on the X-T2 recommendation vs the X-T1 IR is the savings of not having to buy expensive lens filters for three different ring sizes.

[@robshea]

@@prancypooch9694 I have not yet noticed any issues with using adapters. I plan to do much more shooting with them, so I'll share if I find anything.

[@ColinMill1]

I just did a full spectrum conversion on a Panasonic GF5. It was fairly easy and made easier by a Japanese KZbin video showing the process. The sensor can be moved forward slightly using up the adjustment range in the sensor mount. I may remove the mount and machine down the three sensor mount spigots to allow the sensor to be shifted further forward to allow visible light focusing on shorter lenses but for owl photography at IR with an old 70-210 Nikon fit Vivitar Series 1 lens it works fine with all the focusing range I need.

[@robshea]

Nice!

[@nealpritchett2462]

You make me glad I bit the bullet and bought. I did agonize a bit. What I bought was a used Canon M (the original M), used from MPB. I already own a Canon M, as well as a Canon M-50, with a number of M series lenses, as well as an adapter that will allow me to use an even larger number of EF and EFs lenses that I already have. I generally like the old M, even though it really bombed in the market. I love its small size, all metal body, and high resolution sensor. While checking for lenses on the MPB site, I saw the old M conversion - and did not buy. I had considered buying, but hesitated for a couple of reasons. First off, the company did not clearly state what kind of IR conversion had been done. I then spotted another - and let it go by. Finally, on the third camera I saw, I bought. I was not going to let another go by. I am still waiting for my camera to come. I suspect this will be a 720 IR camera, the most common, which is fine; but I do not really know. Ideally I want a full spectrum conversion, and will use filters for the type of IR I want to shoot. Still, for a paltry $200, I get a little IR M, that uses my current lenses and will allow me to get my feet wet. The nice thing about the M is that, as a mirrorless, focus and viewing will all be done in IR. Additionally, the small size of the camera will be handy if I want to do street photography at night. In addition to shooting for affect, I may just decide to shoot IR video and still with an IR light source for night shooting, particularly outdoors. I will update after I have gotten it and used it a bit. For $200 converted - how can I go wrong?

[@robshea]

That sounds like a great deal. I have an M3. It's a great little camera. Unfortunately, I loaned it to my daughter and have never been able to get it back! 😆

[@leighann5308]

Did you ever get your Infrared M? What IR filter was it converted?

[@martintill1535]

Excellent advice Rob. I've been looking at IR conversion options for a while and this video has answered most of my outstanding questions. For focusing and live view/EVF advantages I'll be going mirrorless, as as a Canon shooter, I'll be looking at an EOS R/RP. Not many reviews mention about lens hotspots. I've checked those in my primary range, covering 16-200mm, and they are all rated as "Good". Thank you so much!

[@rollandelliott]

some/most? of the R series lenses have infrared sensors inside that will make them useless for IR photography.

[@martintill1535]

@@rollandelliott did you mean filters (not sensors). I have all EF glass, so not concerned. Worth knowing for the future though. I'll do some research.

[@rivergate950]

@@martintill1535 no he means sensors, little IR leds that are used by the camera lens for some unknnown reason

[@jenky1044]

Great show. Thank you for sharing this with us.

[@russellbaston974]

I went the conversion of what I already had route, so knew the ‘provenance’. I got 2 older but still good Canon 5d2’s. One to full spectrum so I use Lifepixel Super Color and Hyper Color, filters and a Kolari “ Aerochrome”. The other I got to fixed 720nm. I’m in UK so got the conversions done by Advanced Camera Services, who also check and service the camera at the same time. In the future I think I will definitely go the mirrorless route, as I like using vintage lenses, Lensbaby’s and a couple of Lomography lenses, and ‘focus peaking’ makes using manual focus lenses much easier.

[@robshea]

Excellent. Happy shooting!

[@guinottewise]

Good info, well done. Thanks!!!!!

[@trungkienpham2450]

Hi Rob, I want to switch my Nikon z30 to Full Spectrum by removing the filter in front of the sensor, but I don't know what that filter is (it's not LPF) and if removing it will affect focusing? I've never done this before so I'm still confused. If you know, please share your knowledge with me. Thanks.

[@robshea]

Removing the hot mirror filter should not impact auto focusing. However, I do recommend replacing that filter with a clear filter in order to protect the sensor. Otherwise, the sensor will collect dust and could be damaged while cleaning. You can get filters here: www.lifepixel.com/product-category/filters/internal-diy-filters/?ar=130

[@d0qtrx]

I just found your channel. Thank you for all the fantastic info. I've done two IR conversions myself. My First was my Canon Rebel SL-1. That was a lot of fun to experiment with, but I didn't like being limited to shooting in live view off the back of the camera. Still-- cheap camera, not hard to convert-- excellent way to get into IR My new toy is my Canon EOS RP that i just converted. It is nice to be able to use the EVF for focusing and now I can make much better use of my modern manual lenses as well as my vintage glass such as Minolta SR, Canon FD, M42 Takumars, etc. Helios 44-2 magic swirls + IR? Yes, please.

[@robshea]

Awesome! My first conversion was also an SL1. You are right; it was a great affordable way to get started, but I do much prefer mirrorless now. I've done videos on Canon FD and Nikon vintage lenses in IR. I have a bunch of vintage more Minolta, Takumars, and Helios lenses I plan to share content on in the future. So many lenses, so little time!

[@ricasalsa]

Thank you ;) awesome tips.

[@lawrencediggs7957]

How about the Fujifilm X-T1 UV/IR?

[@robshea]

It's certainly viable. However, you can purchase a used X-T2 and have it converted for less money.

[@lawrencediggs7957]

Is there no advantage to having a camera a camera built from the ground up to be IR? How would you compare it to other converted cameras? I am now in the Canon bubble and have all Canon gear. So, unless there is some advantage, I would lean toward staying with Canon.

[@robshea]

@@lawrencediggs7957 I see nothing in the specs to suggest that the X-T1 UV/IR is anything other than an X-T1 without a hot mirror. It has the exact same sensor. One of the lenses in the bundle, the XF60mm, is terrible in IR. It's the lens I use to show examples of bad hot spots. The bundled filters and accessories are all purchasable from different sources. It's a convenient camera/bundle for law enforcement, sold at a substantial markup. In your case, I would stick with Canon and convert a camera.

[@lawrencediggs7957]

@@robshea Thanks much for the insight.

[@efreutel]

Superb! Many thanks!

[@mili224]

Hello, thanks for the detailed info regarding infrared. I have not purchased an IR camera yet, but I'm wondering if there is a benefit to choosing the same brand as my normal (non IR) camera body. I currently shoot Olympus and so I would already have several lenses to choose from. Would I be able to use my pre-existing lenses if I go with an Olympus IR camera, or would the IR body require dedicated lenses? Thanks.

[@robshea]

I recommend using the same mount. This allows you to share lenses and batteries. The lens selection might be more limited for IR, but at least you can share some gear.

[@ozzyhouston2535]

The live view screen on my Nikon D750 seems to have a short delay before the shutter snaps, and sometimes the focus is poor with live view. I suspect I should convert a mirrorless camera.

[@robshea]

Does the D750 have any manual focus support tools, such as digital zoom or focus peaking? These would allow you to get a good focus manually.

[@mindseyeproductions8798]

Someone with IR camera that can video at 180 ffs+ capture daytime skyward images please I’m curious if UAP’s can be viewed

[@danielling792]

Great video. I am considering converting my sony 6500 apc camera to infrared and replace my second prime camera with r4 for landscape. I already have r3 and a collection of Tamron zoom e mount lens for sony. My question is where can I send my camera to be converted as i live in Orange County CA and what lens works well with infrared BW as i have sigma 56 mm 1.4 prime tamron 11-20 mm zoom for apc camera plus other zoom lens for full frame from 16-35 mm sony 28-75 mm and 75-180 mm tamron 150-500mm zoom lens. Do i need to do anything to the lens if i use infrared camera with it?

[@robshea]

Here are some recommendations for conversion. Kolari Vision Camera 590.red/kv LifePixel Infrared Camera 590.red/lp You will need to research individual lenses to determine if they are suitable for IR. In general, primes are better than zoom (especially for wide angles), vintage is better than modern (due to lens coatings), and wide apertures are better than narrow apertures. But there are always exceptions and they vary by manufacturer. I have links to various lens resources here: 590.red/lenses

[@TeamOT]

Just starting my research here. If full spectrum = more sensitivity to light, would that make the A7S a better option than the regular A7? Since the pixels are bigger and it does so much better in lowlight... Asking for science; no way I can afford a converted a7s lol

[@robshea]

Larger pixels benefit low light, but since most IR it shot in daylight, that's not much of a benefit. The primary benefit of larger pixels for IR is to reduce the impact of diffraction. Diffraction is worse in IR compared to visible light. Larger pixels can reduce the impact of diffraction compared to smaller pixels. You can learn more in these videos. Diffraction in Digital Infrared Photography kzbin.info/www/bejne/qWaXqYB_g7qqjMk Which f-stop is the sharpest? GFX 50S Diffraction Test kzbin.info/www/bejne/gHbEaKyCgtubkNU

[@wd9283]

Thank you so much!! If I get my sony converted to infared, I'm assuming it will no longer produce "normal" photos? And if I don't get it converted and use a simple filter, the shutter speed will be really long, right? Please let me know when you get a chance. Thank you so much.

[@robshea]

A camera converted to full spectrum can take normal visible light images when a hot mirror filter is added. Other types of converted cameras cannot take visible light images. With an unconverted camera, shooting infrared with a 720 nm filter will require longer shutter speeds, around 5-30 seconds.

[@Mainuh]

Hi Rob, Another great informative video. I went the ecosystem route, but wonder if I was a little too impulsive. I already had a Nikon D5300 and saw an FS modified D5300 body for sale on "Cloudy Nights" astronomy forum. I purchased it thinking economies of scale with batteries, charger, lenses but didn't ask questions about the conversion until after the purchase and the seller told me he had purchased it off another CN forum used and didn't know who did the conversion or how it was done. I've taken it out with a Hoya 720nm screw on filter on my Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 which is an AF lens but it won't auto focus (it does have the HSM auto focus motor internal and focusses fine on my normal D5300) no problem, I have the live view and am used to MF for astrophotography anyway. My results look plenty red, but I have watched and installed your LUTS and sent you my D500 camera NEF for your profile project and have those installed as well. I've used photoshop elements for years, but just bit the bullet and "rent" the Adobe CC package with LR, Raw, Bridge, and Photoshop. But when I apply the -50 profile and hit the eyedropper for WB I never get the blue skies you seem to get in your videos. It just seems to be a monochrome. I've run the H&S and other LUTS as well but my colors just aren't there. Do you think I bought a pig in a poke in this D5300? I've shot a couple hundred pics with the Hoya 720nm now and just can't get them to look like anything I'd ever want to show anyone. Really disappointed and wondering if I bought someone else's problem (and paid good money for it). Any ideas on how I could test the conversion? One of the reasons I suggested you offered a demo photo in some of your videos was for this reason... I would know if my IR profiles and LUTS are working as they should. Right now I don't know if it's the camera or the profiles & LUTS. I just can't seem to get a decent end result. While I am new to LR & PS, I have used PS Elements for nearly 10 years and the navigation is fairly similar. Appreciate any thoughts you might have... Maybe I need to chuck this converted D5300 and go get one from a reputable vendor. Maybe I'm just missing something in PS. Very frustrated to have spent so much time and money and unable to get a decent result.

[@robshea]

I'm looking at the raw image that you sent for the profile pack. The image looks as it should for an image shot with a 720nm filter. I wouldn't toss out the camera just yet. I think you can get there. First, let's simplify the process. Forget about LR and LUTs for now and just work in PS. - Open the image DSC_5059.NEF in Photoshop, this should open the image in Camera Raw. - Open the profile browser and select the "Infrared Temp -100"profile. - Use the white balance picker and click on the ground, the ground and trees should turn gray/white and the sky should turn a soft dark gold. - Now use the Channel Mixer or my PS Actions to swap the colors. - Now you should have a traditional 720nm look with blue sky and white foliage.

[@Mainuh]

@@robshea ​ Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Unfortunately, I've been through it several times and It just doesn't seem to have the correct color. After doing the above (several times) I still come up with this: mainuh.smugmug.com/Astronomy/IR-TEST/i-JwPnxb4/A Could it be my color space? I'm using the "Adobe" color space in the Nikon D5300 as opposed to the sRGB. Is there some place in RAW or PS where I have to define that? Once it's gone through the channel mixer in PS and I use the color picker most everything seems to be in the "red" space (very little color separation). Maybe I'll try the 720nm filter on my non-modded D5300 and see what result that gets. I'm still suspect of the FS mod.

[@robshea]

@@Mainuh That screenshot looks fine to me. Just click Open and swap channels with the channel mixer.

[@Mainuh]

@@robshea I had already done the channel mixing. :-(

[@robshea]

@@Mainuh That screenshot was of a raw image in Camera Raw. You wouldn't be able to apply a channel mixer until after opening the image in Camera Raw. I'm planning to do a live stream in the next few weeks. If you'd like, I can edit this image during the stream.

[@photographingwildlife8779]

Thanks for all the info! I have a Sony A7R IV that I no longer use after upgrading. Can it be converted to full spectrum? After reading comments, I am not sure. If so, where do you recommend sending it?

[@robshea]

Yes, just about any mirrorless camera can be converted to full spectrum. Here are the conversion companies that I recommend. Kolari Vision Camera Conversions & Filters - USA and worldwide: 590.red/kv LifePixel Infrared Camera Conversions & Filters - USA and worldwide: 590.red/lp Full Spectrum International Camera Conversions & Filters - EU and worldwide: 590.red/fsuk

[@photographingwildlife8779]

THANK YOU! @@robshea

[@4sapphireb]

Different camera conversion companies will not convert certain cameras for different reasons. Sony generation 2,3 and 4 has an internal IR light to assist in auto focus and effects IR photography. I feel first generation cameras are buggy and may not be a good choice. eBay is not like it use to be, the sellers are waiting for absolute top dollar and not auctioning the cameras and lenses. I think getting a low to mid level camera renewed on Amazon is best. I count tell them from new. For photo (not video) there has been no REAL increase on cameras in 4 years.

[@Ni5ei]

The infrared LED only contaminates the pictures when using shutter speeds longer than 1 second. So for astro photography this is an issue but for regular daylight photography there's no issue. I don't know what you mean by saying the first gen A7 cameras are "buggy". I've been using a full spectrum converted A7 for 2 years now and never had any issues.

[@katherinemuirhead1166]

Given a choice between converting Fuji xt1 or xpro 1 to a IR 720nm which would you choose and why. I’m interested in your thoughts on this as I have the choice to convert one of these two cameras and I’d like to make the right choice. Thank you for your help Katie

[@robshea]

I would convert the X-T1. I find it limiting to work with fixed screens. I much prefer tilt or flip screens. Tilt/flip screens allow me to shoot low or overhead with ease. They are also easier to use with tripods at various heights. I would rather have the slightly lower resolution tilt screen than the slightly higher resolution fixed screen. The big advantage of the X-Pro1 is the optical viewfinder, but that will not give you a preview of what the image will look like in IR.

[@katherinemuirhead1166]

@@robshea hi rob I’m going to take your advice and have the xt1 converted, thank you for your help i find your videos really helpful.

[@carlosmartinezlugo4556]

congratulations e very informative video, your opinion on pentax k70, the number of pixels are important in ir photography , can you recomend a lens for macro photography but aplicated to infra red

[@robshea]

It’s really going to depend on the lenses. You can research lenses for IR here. 590.red/lenses

[@robertabbott5873]

Outstanding. Subscribed!

[@kbqvist]

Great overview!

[@owenduncan760]

You prolly dont care but if you guys are stoned like me atm you can stream pretty much all the new series on InstaFlixxer. Have been binge watching with my brother for the last few months =)

[@milanjamari7128]

@Owen Duncan Yup, I have been watching on InstaFlixxer for years myself =)

[@tambiolom]

Thank you for this comprehensive introduction to infrared photography. I would like to hear your take on how the Sigma SD Quattro performs in infrared photography. I believe it has a removable IR-cut filter. Thanks.

[@robshea]

The Sigma SD Quattro is intriguing. The removable filter means that you essentially have a full spectrum camera without the need for conversion. The high apparent resolution is also appealing. My biggest concern is the sensor; the Foveon sensor captures 4x more blue light than red or green. By comparison, a Bayer sensor captures 2x more green, than red or blue; an X-trans captures 5x green to 2x red and 2x blue. The red layer in a Foveon captures less red and near-IR detail compared to other sensors. The high-resolution benefits of the Foveon sensor may be negated by the limited red sensitivity. That doesn't mean that this couldn't be a good or even great IR camera. But I haven't seen any examples where it is substantially better than other cameras for IR. I still find it intriguing and keep an eye out for deals on used listings.

[@tambiolom]

@@robshea Thank you, sir. More power to you and keep up the good work.

[@marct8788]

@@robshea Thank you for this and your other videos. I'm in the Nikon Z ecosystem and think about a conversion, but have seen in the web that for the PDAF banding might be a bigger issue than with visual light photography (with visual light I don't see much of a problem in my images). Do you have any insight, maybe from others? Regarding the X-trans sensor, they have a color filter array with only 2/9 red filters, whereas a Bayer patterns has a 1/4 ratio (1 of 4 filters are red). Does this have any practical impact, e.g. on the effective resolution or on the sensitiviy/exposure needed? Thanks in advance

[@robshea]

@@marct8788 I've created profiles from IR raw images from the Z5, Z6, Z6 II, Z7, Z7 II, Z9, and Z50. I've seen no banding in these images. I've done some tests between IR images on Canon (Bayer) and Fujifilm (X-Trans) to see if the color mosaic pixel count made a noticeable difference. I was not able to notice any difference.

[@natureimagesindia]

Great video. Thanks a lot

[@timjones2052]

Hi Rob , i am looking for a camera to convert to infrared that shoots 4K video @ 120fps ( micro 4.3 ) this is primarily going to be used for recording ufo during the day . Can you help please.

[@robshea]

These cameras shoot 4K at 120fps on MFT sensors: Panasonic Lumix G9II, Panasonic Lumix GH6, or Z Cam E2. These cameras shoot 4K at 120fps on other sensors: Canon EOS R5, Canon EOS R3, Canon EOS C70, DJI OSMO Action 4, Fujifilm X-H2S, GoPro Hero10 Black, GoPro Hero11 Black, GoPro Hero12 Black, Nikon Z9, Sony A7S III, Sony FX3

[@jackcastro4952]

Excellent video. I am considering converting a Sony RX10 IV to full spectrum. I want to be able to use the camera for standard pictures too, using a Hot Mirror Filter (UV/IR cut). That way I do not have to travel with 2 cameras. Is there any loss of quality with the hot mirror filter? Any effect on aperture? Thank you!

[@robshea]

With a quality filter from a reputable brand, there is little difference between a hot mirror filter directly in front of the sensor on an unconverted camera and an externally mounted hot mirror filter on a full spectrum converted camera. You should not see an impact on image quality.

[@jackcastro4952]

@@robshea Thank you for your reply. I watched some of your videos last night. Excellent content. A great way to get started in IR.

[@luiscurran1]

Rob, have you checked out Fujifilm’s 70-300 mm lens yet for its IR performance? Thx.

[@robshea]

As reported by others, it is good for IR. (I have not tested it myself.) It in on my list of lenses: blog.robsheaphotography.com/2020/08/17/fuji-x-mount-lenses-for-infrared.html#telephoto-zooms

[@robertthomas3686]

You have got me on the right track with IR photography from watching your videos. I converted a Canon 5D 9 years ago when I upgraded to 5DII and now at 5D-IV. I could never get good results those 9 years ago doing my work in PS but now with your guidance I am FINALLY getting some very enjoyable results. SO I am thinking of getting a newer Canon converted. I just watched your "what Camera..." video again and wondering which I should consider. I am on the LOOONG waiting list for the 5R but will not convert that as most of my work is visual spectrum landscape. But IR interests me. So I am thinking of the APS-C Canon mirrorless -- what might you recommend as I can use my EOS lenses with adapter on both the 5R and a M series. Thanks

[@robshea]

Go for the M series. I picked up a used M3 a couple years ago when I was shooting mostly Canon (T5i, 70D, SL1) and was very happy with the size and functionality. The only downsize was the limited number of lenses. There are more lens choices today and if you have already have EF lenses that you can use with the converter, then you have lots of options. Today, I would lean towards the M5 or M6 with the newer sensor. The M50 and M100 have better video, but you don't need it.

[@PsytastikTunes]

@@robshea what about a Canon RP? I'm thinking of getting that converted.

[@robshea]

I have not personally used an RP, but I've seen raw files shot on an RP and they look great.

[@glennobrien5039]

I've just purchased a conversion of an Olympus E-PL2 from EBay. The seller came back to me and apologised that as a result of the conversion the stabilisation system no longer worked. He gave me the options of a full refund, one where he sent me the camera but at 20 percent refund or a different camera. I chose the 20 percent deal a) because I was just dipping my toes into IR and if it wasn't for me I wouldn't have lost much, b) because I'm most interested in doing landscapes on a tripod, and c) I'm heavily into the O;ympus MFT system anyway so another camera make would have been a bit of a bind. I already have a 17mm f1.8 lens which is ideal for purpose. However, I was interested to hear if you were aware of this loss of IS being a common problem when converting cameras to IR; either Olympus or any other particular brands of camera.

[@robshea]

Between the bright sun exposures, the wide angle lenses, and the tripod, I don't think you will miss the stabilization that much. I have not yet had a camera with IBIS converted, so I can't say I've seen it. Since the conversion work is done right on the sensor, I would not be surprised if it is either a given or a common mistaken during the conversion.

[@leighann5308]

I was just about to convert my Olympus Pl-2 with Lifepixel im glad I saw your post I don’t want to lose my stabilization I never heard of that before does this happen with the Sony 6000 also? I get good iR photos from my unconverted Olympus Pl-2 with my Hoya r72 so I’ll just keep doing that.

[@michaeldodds2722]

Didn't hear any mention of the dramatically long exposure times when using an IR filter. I've used a 920nm filter and in broad daylight it can take 10 to 15 minutes depending on the aperture, this reduces what you can photograph using a filter as trees and foliage will be blurred. For a serious photographer who wants to try IR, filters are not a realistic option.

[@robshea]

This is one of the key differences between unconverted and converted cameras. With an unconverted camera and a 720 nm filter, you can expect exposure times of around 10-30 seconds. with an unconverted camera and a 800+ nm filter exposure times will be 5 minutes or longer. However, with a converted camera, the exposure times will be similar to visible light photography. Using filters on unconverted cameras can produce excellent results, you just need to be aware of the long exposure times.

[@SeekingTheVerdants]

Hi Rob, do you have information on converting a Canon 6D? Thanks!

[@robshea]

You can have it converted by Kolari Vision 590.red/kv or LifePixel 590.red/lp or you can convert yourself using these instructions: www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/life-pixel-canon-6d-diy-digital-infrared-conversion-tutorial

[@sinasoleimanian4092]

Hello Rob, Hi Rob I came across your clips on KZbin and looked at quite a few of them, I am creating a camera setup that can detect the 1300 nm spectrum of IR light. From what I understand, most of the available camera conversions can handle a wavelength range of approximately 700 nm to 1100 nm with IR pass filters. However, I'm not aware of any off-the-shelf cameras that can be converted to handle the specific 1300 nm wavelength. would you know if this is an option? if yes what cheap camera could I use? my issue is with cost, I can not afford an InGaAs Camera as they are well above my budget.

[@bueb8674]

I know you comment is a year ago but my 2 cents anyway. The problem simply is that Silicon is transparent starting around 1300nm, and over 1100nm the sensitivity is practically zero. No consumer photography camera is gonna do this. InGaAs looks like the main option between normal Silicon sensors and HgCdTe thermal sensors.

[@leef3167]

Great advice. I have a Nikon D7200 and a Sigma 16-35mm. Will the lens work after a conversion? Do most people choose the live view option?

[@robshea]

I don't see that specific lens listed in any of the sources I track for hot spots. Here is the list. 590.red/lenses

[@robshea]

When I converted my first DSLR, I just used live-view and didn't worry about calibrating a lens.

[@leef3167]

Thanks for your advice.

[@leef3167]

The lens is a Sigma DC 17-50mm. EX HSM. I posted the wrong lens info.

[@robshea]

@@leef3167 A comment from the Kolari Vision list of lenses "I have tried the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens and it suffers rather badly produces large hotspots. I would avoid this lens for IR."

[@charlescarabott7692]

Is a Nikon coolpix P900 bridge a good camera to convert to infrared?

[@robshea]

Both LifePixel and Kolari Vision offer conversion services for the P900. This suggests that the lens does not have hot spots and is suitable for shooting IR. The P900 does not shoot raw, so you will want to set a custom white balance when you shoot. That's not as flexible as shooting raw and setting WB in post, but it's do-able.

[@Aivaras83]

Hi, I'm thinking to convert Nikon Coolpix L830. Because it has 34x zoom. Also I'm going to use IR laser torch 850 nm. My target is to just use it as monocular for distance 300-600 yards. So, no picture quality needed, only to see if anyone is there :) Is it possible to do with this camera, as I like the zoom and no other lenses needed. Thanks

[@robshea]

The main issue would be hot spots with the lens. If you know of a conversion company that has converted this camera and can offer an opinion on the hot spots, that would be good info to have. Otherwise, if hot spots are less of a concern for your use case, the camera itself should be fine.

[@elementkid88]

Hello Rob. I very, very rarely subscribe to a channel, but I've subscribed to yours. Please take that as a compliment. I've been a Canon using Pro for many years and have a 720nm converted 5D3 which has given me some reasonable results. However, for maximum quality hobbyist and Fine Art side projects I have recently added Fujifilm GFX bodies. Do you have any intel as to which GF lenses do/don't lend themselves to IR photography in terms of hot spots etc? Appreciate your good work. Tim

[@robshea]

The following GF lenses are hot spot free and ideal for IR: 45mm f/2.8, 110mm f/2, 120mm f/4, 45-100mm f/4, 100-200mm f/5.6. I own the 45mm f/2.8 and it is fantastic. I also have the 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6, which has mild but correctable hot spots.

[@elementkid88]

@@robshea Wow Rob, thanks for the speedy and extremely helpful reply. I currently have the 110/2, the 20-35/4 and the 35-70 so that's generally good news. I will certainly give serious consideration to the 45/2.8 and, as you mention primes are often better for (not having) hot spots than zooms, it may be that the 23/4 is preferable to the 20-35/4. Food for thought. Currently working my way through your excellent vids - thanks again, from damp southern England.

[@robshea]

I've added a page with more details on the Fujifilm GF lenses for Infrared: blog.robsheaphotography.com/infrared-lenses-fujifilm-gf/

[@elementkid88]

@@robshea Brilliant! Top man.

[@PPGExplorer]

Hey Rob. Just found you today and I appreciate this discussion. I've wanted to get into infrared photography for years but was waiting till I had to upgrade cameras. Well that time has come and I was considering converting my Canon 5D MKII to infrared. Thoughts? My go to lenses for the 5D are the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 and the Canon 24-105. Any idea if these are ok for infrared photography? Appreciate your time.. Subbed!

[@robshea]

The Kolari Vision Lens Hotspot Database shows both of those lenses are good for IR. The 5D MkII is a solid camera. Since it's a DSLR, be aware that you can have the viewfinder focus calibrated to work with one and only one lens. This has to be done at the time of the conversion. When using live view, you can focus with any lens regardless of the calibration, since it's a different focusing system. With the DSLR I converted, I didn't worry about focus calibration, since I knew I would be using multiple lenses with live view.

[@PPGExplorer]

@@robshea Awesome. Thank you for the quick reply...

[@matthewpaulpink]

Could I covert an x100f? Any idea how much that would cost?

[@robshea]

You can convert an X100F. The cost is around 250-300 USD. Since this is a fixed lens camera, you will not be able to change lenses to deal with hot spots. However, the hot spots produced by these lenses are relatively mild and correctable. I converted an X70 which produces mild hot posts. I've created two radial filters in LRC to fix, added them to a preset, and then apply that preset when importing images. You can get more examples here: 127.0.0.1:4001/infrared-lenses-fujifilm-x/#compact-cameras-with-prime-lenses

[@haroldsession1658]

What about the Nikon J series, like the J1, V1, or V2? Can they be converted?

[@robshea]

Yes, the Nikon J series cameras can be converted.

[@gittlemanm]

Is a Nikon D90 a reasonable choice for IR conversion?

[@robshea]

Just about any DSLR or mirrorless camera would be a good choice. If you are familiar with Nikon or already hang Nikon gear, even better!

[@nick-dm3if]

Im doing a nikon d780 its cheap and still a good camera.

[@jaysonramos3700]

does megapixel of a camera matter in the output of the ir image?

[@robshea]

The pixel pitch of the sensor impacts diffraction. Given the same sensor dimensions, the sensor with fewer megapixels will have less diffraction at a given aperture. Cameras with fewer megapixels can use narrower apertures without diffraction and get a greater depth of field. You can get more details at diffraction.cam/

[@jaysonramos3700]

@@robshea what a great insight! thanks!

[@jaysonramos3700]

@@robshea may i just add, is a micro four thirds with 12mp a good choice than a apsc with 16 mp? i have existing micro four thirds and considering an apsc for conversion, but ill spend another cash, on top of the conversion, so im opting to use the money for the conversion of the micro 4/3 instead

[@robshea]

@@jaysonramos3700 A 12mp MFT and a 16mp APS-C will be similar in diffraction. In this case, I would not use megapixels or diffraction to decide. Both will give good results.

[@rollandelliott]

getting more complicated sony A7R IV has phase detect auto focus (pdaf) banding! some canon RF lenses have Infrared sensors making many unuseable in IR. Some other camers have IR shutter monitors that fog up the photo. really annoying! camera manufacturers shoudl anticipate we are going to mess up the entire camera! lol.

[@robshea]

😂

[@PennyOMG]

What about ccd vs cmos?

[@robshea]

One of the key differences between CCD and CMOS is how they handle noise in low light. Since most infrared is shot in direct sunlight, noise is not usually much of a factor. They should be similar under these conditions.

[@dtroix]

What about xe3

[@robshea]

The sensor in the X-E3 is solid. If you don't mind the lack of a tilt or flip screen, then it's a solid camera to convert.

[@ariloguecom]

I've been watching your videos for the last few days and decided to convert my old CCD sensor compact camera into one suitable for infrared photography. But there are a few things I couldn't understand. On other KZbin channels covering this subject, photos taken with converted cameras, photos doesn't look very pleasing to the eye as they come out of the camera. Even after adjusting the white balance, the situation is the same. For this reason, I can't quite understand whether I need to use additional filters while taking the photo or whether I need to make some extra settings when editing the photo after taking it. I would be very happy if you could make a video about the process that someone who starts taking photos converted camera will go through and what they should do while taking and after taking the photos. Thank you in advance for your reply

[@robshea]

The white balance controls in-camera does not have enough latitude to support IR images. If you are shooting with a color IR high-pass filter, you'll need to shoot in raw and complete the white balance edit in a raw editor. The specific approach will depend on which raw editor you use. Here is a playlist of common raw editors and the process for editing infrared images. Find your editor in this playlist for details. kzbin.info/aero/PLW4H_E25cS0pHBhGYkXte3SAZL9Q9EmgF&si=jRrL-a5IZaip8--Z

[@BigBadLoneWolf]

1 camera you should not convert is the Nikon D850, because you cannot use clip in filters with it due to a firmware update

[@davidboulton5793]

You talk about micro four thirds but at the end don’t recommend any. Are there any you would recommend but forgot to mention?

[@robshea]

I don't have much experience with MFT cameras, which makes it difficult to recommend specific models. As mirrorless cameras, they all tend to be good for infrared. In general, look for features that you'd like in a camera and research lenses to ensure that there are enough good lenses without hot spots.

[@nick-dm3if]

Olympus for sure, any of them really are great.

[@RemusLt]

IMO Nikons are better than Canons for infrared. Especially the 590nm.

[@911TruthFighter]

A warning to photographers needing conversions (to infra-red, astro, etc.) or camera repair: Stay away from Spencer’s Camera in Utah, which bills itself as doing work for NASA; they have photographers recommending them on YT videos and so on. The are outright crooks; no other way to put it. Back in February I sent them two Canon T6s, both for sensor cleaning, one for conversion to Infra-red. I made it clear I needed it done quickly as I am on the road in my RV, etc. They said no problem, about $375. Okay. It took more than 6 weeks, with no answer on their phone (filled up voice mail). They finally returned my emails saying everyone was ‘at a workshop’ in Canada. Aggravating. The eventual package was so poorly wrapped that one T6 was sticking out of a ragged hole. There was no invoice or receipt or even an indication of which T6 was converted, which was merely cleaned. I went online to my bank to see that they ‘rounded up’ to $400.00 on my cc. No invoice indeed. Would have been iffy to round up. But the real reason was only one camera was actually worked on, the conversion. I assume they didn’t want to put a lie on paper since both cameras still had filthy sensors and are useless. I wanted to have it on record, so I used email to complain. My two emails went unanswered. This is a well-known company (NASA, etc) but they obviously do not care (in the extreme) about us peons. I have posted the first photos out of my cameras on my blog if you want to see what they… didn’t do and over-charged me for it after being 4 weeks late. I’m a well thought-of writer (3 books, many TV/feature scripts) named Allan Weisbecker; I have worked professionally as a photographer (including covers) for magazines like Smithsonian, Men’s Journal, Popular Photography, and so on. Google me and do a search for my blog if you want to verify what I’m saying (and see the dirty sensor pics). ‘Allan C Weisbecker + blog’. Look for the title ‘Spencer’s Cameras Are Crooks’.

[@vicamaral]

And nebulas in the heavens nights skies

[@philmtx3fr]

Hum sorry but I didn’t find this video so interesting… some obvious things are delevered in the first part : « better to stay in the same system », « you need to transform a camera tha you lik use to use, and for the brand part , for Nikon you propose to convert very low end camera of very high end mirror less…. I suspect you can have far better bargain in transforming old dslr (less than 10years old) taken on second hand market… so a little disappointed when I think’to all the other videos yoû did on that infrared top

[@nick-dm3if]

This made no sense

[@philmtx3fr]

@@nick-dm3if sorry I wanted to say : « very low end camera OR very high end mirror less… » perhaps better like this :).