Crop frame/ micro 4/3 / full frame

Hali

Well-known member
Gold
What are peoples preferences when it comes to cameras for infrared?

My go-to camera currently is a sony A6000, but I am planning on changing that soon. I also have an old 7D that's been converted to 720nm and a lumix GX7 that's 590nm. I would like to go full frame but I really am getting weary of the weight of DSLR's. I did try a Canon RP courtesy of Kolari at a workshop I was at but my 24-105 II lens produced a hot spot in almost all my images and it really didn't lighten my load too much. I had an Olympus OMD-EM-1 that was converted but got rid of it due to the horrible noise in long exposures and moderately high ISO (800).

Any thoughts as to where I could go next? Any thoughts on the Sony A6500?
 

Craig

Administrator
Staff member
Gold
Hi Hali,

The Age Old Delimna of what to Shoot with or Upgrade to. I recently had asked myself the same thing, and had gotten
kind of excited about getting a FF Sony a7, and then have it modded. After Checking with a lot of different folks, and Modder's
it was kind of like, the Sony a6300 I'm using now is a pretty good rig and have to say I've been very pleased with it's results. So, unless I wanted
to spend about 1500-2K I wasn't really going to be upping my Game that much, in my mind anyway.

Before this, I had the Olympus E-PL6, that I'd had KV buy for me and Mod, and have to say it was Inexpensive, small , lightweight, very easy to use and Set a CWB. I thought the images I got from the Kit Lens were actually beautiful and very nice details . The only drawback for me was it didn't have a ViewFinder and my Eyes aren't as good as they used to be so doing things from the LCD Screen while doable wasn't what I'd wanted.

I'll be curious what you decide and others thoughts as well, Have to say I've kind of had my Eye on the new Nikon Z6 ;) So we'll see how that turns out !!!

Take Care,

Craig
 

Hali

Well-known member
Gold
Thank you for your thoughts Craig!

I have to say if it wasn't for the absolutely lousy menu system and the iffy noise at moderate ISO's I'd keep the a6000. I've also been tempted by the idea of going to full spectrum which would be another reason to get a new camera. I guess I was thinking the same thing you are about the Z6 in getting the Canon RP, It's full spectrum and apparently mods very well according to KV (and from what I used of one). It is also not insanely expensive. I'd be interested in others thoughts whether full frame and full spectrum are worth the investment.
 

Craig

Administrator
Staff member
Gold
Thank you for your thoughts Craig!

I have to say if it wasn't for the absolutely lousy menu system and the iffy noise at moderate ISO's I'd keep the a6000. I've also been tempted by the idea of going to full spectrum which would be another reason to get a new camera. I guess I was thinking the same thing you are about the Z6 in getting the Canon RP, It's full spectrum and apparently mods very well according to KV (and from what I used of one). It is also not insanely expensive. I'd be interested in others thoughts whether full frame and full spectrum are worth the investment.

Hali, I'm not sure if the a6000 is the same as the a6300 but I've not found it too funky to use, but honestly I don't need too much
as I've got things set pretty much what I want. Also, not sure about the Noise, I don't find my images that noisy, wonder what's going on there ??? Do you have one that you can show as an example / with EXIF ???

I think that Pierre-Louis is using the new Canon, hopefully he'll give his thoughts as if I remember correctly he's been using
some "Non-Mirrorless" lenses on it.

Take Care,

Craig
 

Hali

Well-known member
Gold
Hi Craig,
The 6000 was the predecessor for the 6300, I find it funky only in that the menus and moving the focus point are really annoying to me. The noise isn't bad (especially compared to my old Olympus) it is in comparison with my visible light cameras. I'll look for a an example and post it with EXIF data when I get a moment (I have to figure out what is wrong with my wacom tablet first - I have a love hate relationship with that thing)

I'll chat with Pierre-Louis about what he is using, whether it is an R or an RP! Thanks for letting me know that.
 
R

Rob

Guest
After lugging my Canon gear and all that fantastic, but fantastically heavy glass, up a few mountains, I decided to sell it all. Since I wanted to stick to a single system, this also meant selling my first IR converted camera.

A settled on Fuji as the best intersection of image quality, weight, interface, and cost. Weight was a big factor. I love it and have no regrets. The image quality is great! (But I do miss the 70-200mm f/2.8 occasionally.) I picked up a used X-T2 for visible light, a used X-E1 as a second body for events, and a new X-T20, which I converted to 590nm. I got a smaller sling bag. It's half the weight of my old kit, and I can now hike long distances with 2 bodies and a variety of lenses.

Lens selection is a factor, since some lenses are not good for IR, but online research helps.

Full frame always sounds great, until I think about the weight. 😎
 

DonPilou

Active member
Speaking about my experience: I starting IR photography by having converted a Canon 400D (there is a different ref for US market), an entry level aps-c camera without live view. It allowed me to discover this technique for a low cost.

Then when I bought my 5DII for traditional photography I decided to convert my Canon 50D, and I discovered the advantage of live view.

Then I spent some time with a 7D dedicated to 720nm, so with internal filter.

After some years using aps-c cameras, I decided to buy an used Cano 6D to convert in full spectrum. That was my first IR full frame, and the quality was a step higher. Also, I was able to use my 16-35 F/4 IS on its "real" range, a lens I consider being the best wide angle for infrared photography. I used my 6D for both IR and UV photography.

I found a great occasion to buy a 5DIV last year and wanted to convert it to full spectrum also. Unfortunately, this camera suffers from internal IR led leak, so I had to convert it back to visible (but only with an IR cut filter, I still can do UV photography with it). Thanks to the prices won at the first Kolari contest, I bought a full spectrum Canon RP, and for me this is just the best camera to use in IR and UV: it has EVF, it is smaller and lighter than a dslr, it has a Canon sensor which offers the best sensibility to IR, and I use it most of the time with old Super Takumar prime lenses, small, well built and offering a very good image quality.
 

Hali

Well-known member
Gold
After lugging my Canon gear and all that fantastic, but fantastically heavy glass, up a few mountains, I decided to sell it all. Since I wanted to stick to a single system, this also meant selling my first IR converted camera.

A settled on Fuji as the best intersection of image quality, weight, interface, and cost. Weight was a big factor. I love it and have no regrets. The image quality is great! (But I do miss the 70-200mm f/2.8 occasionally.) I picked up a used X-T2 for visible light, a used X-E1 as a second body for events, and a new X-T20, which I converted to 590nm. I got a smaller sling bag. It's half the weight of my old kit, and I can now hike long distances with 2 bodies and a variety of lenses.

Lens selection is a factor, since some lenses are not good for IR, but online research helps.

Full frame always sounds great, until I think about the weight. 😎
I was wondering about the Fuji system Rob, but don't they usually come without an EVF? I am old fashioned and really like a viewfinder to look through. Thanks for the information.
 
Last edited:
R

Rob

Guest
I was wondering about the Fuji system Don, but don't they usually come without an EVF? I am old fashioned and really like a viewfinder to look through. Thanks for the information.
All of the Fujifilm cameras in the X-Pro, X-T, and X-E series include an EVF. The X-Pro includes both EVF and OVF.
 

Hali

Well-known member
Gold
Speaking about my experience: I starting IR photography by having converted a Canon 400D (there is a different ref for US market), an entry level aps-c camera without live view. It allowed me to discover this technique for a low cost.

Then when I bought my 5DII for traditional photography I decided to convert my Canon 50D, and I discovered the advantage of live view.

Then I spent some time with a 7D dedicated to 720nm, so with internal filter.

After some years using aps-c cameras, I decided to buy an used Cano 6D to convert in full spectrum. That was my first IR full frame, and the quality was a step higher. Also, I was able to use my 16-35 F/4 IS on its "real" range, a lens I consider being the best wide angle for infrared photography. I used my 6D for both IR and UV photography.

I found a great occasion to buy a 5DIV last year and wanted to convert it to full spectrum also. Unfortunately, this camera suffers from internal IR led leak, so I had to convert it back to visible (but only with an IR cut filter, I still can do UV photography with it). Thanks to the prices won at the first Kolari contest, I bought a full spectrum Canon RP, and for me this is just the best camera to use in IR and UV: it has EVF, it is smaller and lighter than a dslr, it has a Canon sensor which offers the best sensibility to IR, and I use it most of the time with old Super Takumar prime lenses, small, well built and offering a very good image quality.
thank you for the feedback Don. I did try the RP and really like it but it’s the weight I worry about. I don’t normally use primes (except for my big beast of a 500) maybe it’s time to start
 
S

Stephanie

Guest
Hi, new to the forum. I am JUST starting my journey into IR and have not yet purchased a camera. Hoping to get lots of insight here. Also, I tend to be a very simple shooter and processor, not looking to spend days in post processing. I have a D500 I am considering LifePixel convert to Super Color with my 28-70 2.8 as the primary lens. But, also considering a mirrorless. I am open to all thoughts and suggestions.
 
R

Rob

Guest
I’ve converted both a DSLR and a mirrorless and successfully shot with both. With a DSLR, you are limited to live view for accurate focusing, unless the camera’s focus is calibrated a specific lens. I found that too restrictive and opted to focus with live view only on the DSLR. Mirrorless essentially avoids this focus issue since all auto focus is performed off the sensor. This simplicity gives mirrorless an edge.
 

Infra-Edd

Well-known member
Gold
I started shooting IR more with an IR converted Canon G9 compact, then moved up to an IR converted Canon 450D. About 5 years ago I sold all my DSLRs and switched to the Sony A7 which I converted to full spectrum after only 3 weeks and was extremely happy with it.

Full spectrum, full frame mirrorless (with and EVF) is so easy and friendly to use. It enables almost endless experimentation with filters and lenses and thus I'd recommend it to anyone who finds that appealing. The original Sony A7 can be picked up pretty cheap these days and the sensor quality is still very competitive. Adapting old manual lenses was not only cheap and fun but enabled me to get some amazing infrared image quality, which I made lens test data for here.

Late last year I converted a Sony A7III to full spectrum. Although it's an amazing camera it has a couple of issues with IR that the original A7 did not. The worst being striping which makes me not want to recommend anyone else converts this camera. The Nikon Z6 suffers from the same issues because it's the same sensor, but I've heard 3 companies confirm the issues no longer effect the mk4 Sony A7R.
 
Top