you probably meant an IR blocking filter; 'IR filter' is confusing because most people refer to IR pass filters (like Hoya R72, RM90 etc.) as 'IR filters'.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Something completely different: IR converted NEX-5
- Thread starter Phaelix
- Start date
At this point I'm sure a full spectrum G6 is a good choice. I haven't been able to find something that is clearly superior to my full spectrum Sony dsc-f717 in image quality and convenience, and still has acceptable price (e.g. below $ 1000 including conversion, lenses etc.). The G6 probably has a bit higher image quality in IR than the 717, because of newer sensor and RAW format (especially for color IR).
You could use the G6 for some time, see what you like and don't like about IR/full spectrum and maybe exchange it in 1-2 years for a new mirrorless system, once the technology (lens range etc.) is more mature. The G6 uses 58mm filters, if you stick to that you should be able to use them with many NEX or m43 lenses in future (important factor, as blocking filter and some IR filters cost more than $ 100 each). If you plan ahead, the cost of using a G6 as a 'temporary' solution should be pretty low.
L
Labe
Guest
I simply swapped red for blue and blue for red. Followed by a wb fine tune increased sat a little and brightness. All done in paint shop pro x. Hope this helps Cheers Paul UK
--
new to technology,always learning
--
new to technology,always learning
Outstanding- I'll give it a spin myself with my next batch and see how it goes
Today I tested the SEL1855 in Infra-Red. The weather was pretty ordinary, so shutter speeds are on the low side and the contrast is so-so; there are still some interesting results.
5
My Impressions: Sharpness is pretty darn good right across frame! I was expecting the 18-55 to degrade similarly to the 16mm in the shift to IR, but it actually holds up remarkably well. I did notice that the complex distortion of the kit zoom is especially prominent in IR, but nonetheless, it seems pretty usable.
Pretty pleased with this result- having a usable AF-capable general purpose zoom is a real boon.
5
My Impressions: Sharpness is pretty darn good right across frame! I was expecting the 18-55 to degrade similarly to the 16mm in the shift to IR, but it actually holds up remarkably well. I did notice that the complex distortion of the kit zoom is especially prominent in IR, but nonetheless, it seems pretty usable.
Pretty pleased with this result- having a usable AF-capable general purpose zoom is a real boon.
Another test, this time using the new E-Mount 50mm f/1.8 OSS.
5
Obviously there's a lot of interest around this lens for general shooting- it should go without saying that these samples are worse than useless for judging performance in anything other than IR.
That said, here are my observations:
Sharpness is very high across the frame at f/1.8, with the corners not quite as good as the centre. Stopping down helps a little with the corners, but not as much as I would expect, given the lens' excellent performance in visible light. There is a subtle vignette/hotspot, easily fixed.
Considering that this lens will probably be used for infra-red portraiture only, where corner sharpness is irrelevant, I've go no complaints. Overall, this lens is a winner in IR.
5
Obviously there's a lot of interest around this lens for general shooting- it should go without saying that these samples are worse than useless for judging performance in anything other than IR.
That said, here are my observations:
Sharpness is very high across the frame at f/1.8, with the corners not quite as good as the centre. Stopping down helps a little with the corners, but not as much as I would expect, given the lens' excellent performance in visible light. There is a subtle vignette/hotspot, easily fixed.
Considering that this lens will probably be used for infra-red portraiture only, where corner sharpness is irrelevant, I've go no complaints. Overall, this lens is a winner in IR.
yes, the kit zoom looks pretty good; Pete Ganzel reported the same for his IR-Nex5 a long time ago. Too bad the kit zoom starts at 18 and not at 16mm 
Still, there is a general softness on the borders that is stronger than what I see with my nearly 8 year old dsc-f717 ...
Also the light falloff towards the corners is pretty strong in the images of the 16mm and 18-55mm. This is to be expected with infrared (stronger than for visible light), but I don't see this as much with my 717 - probably because it has a more telecentric lens design. I don't think this is a real problem though, it can enhance the mood in the images and you could simply correct it if necessary.
Still, there is a general softness on the borders that is stronger than what I see with my nearly 8 year old dsc-f717 ...Also the light falloff towards the corners is pretty strong in the images of the 16mm and 18-55mm. This is to be expected with infrared (stronger than for visible light), but I don't see this as much with my 717 - probably because it has a more telecentric lens design. I don't think this is a real problem though, it can enhance the mood in the images and you could simply correct it if necessary.
I did not know this lens was out yet! Indeed looks very good, but probably as expected for this type of lens. Standard lenses (except the really bright ones) and short tele lenses often perform very well in IR. It is good to hear that these Sony lenses don't have a strong hotspot, because many modern lenses (e.g. from Canon) have that problem in IR.
The way you keep talking up this f717, I'd be interested to see some shots!
I will try to post some over the weekend, don't have my IR images online (except for some really old ones). Of course it would be most interesting to have examples of exactly the same scene, taken with the different full spectrum / IR cameras
wow, do you work for Sony or something, that you have access to all these new lenses? The 24mm should be really nice, although the coating could still spoil some of the fun (as Zeiss have special IR coating for some of the ZF lenses). Unfortunately the 24mm is a bit long for my type of photography, I really want a good lens in the 16-18mm range (24-28mm effective fl).
Yeah I work at a national head office for Sony. It's a good gig for a camera nerd.
Finally got a chance to try out the SEL24F18Z in IR.
5
My observations: The lens is almost as sharp in IR as it is in visible light. It's a bit hard to judge micro contrast because of the IR image's inherently low contrast, but it seems good by comparison. No sign of fruity coatings interacting badly with IR light. The character of the background blur is nice, will be a contender for wide portraits.
5
My observations: The lens is almost as sharp in IR as it is in visible light. It's a bit hard to judge micro contrast because of the IR image's inherently low contrast, but it seems good by comparison. No sign of fruity coatings interacting badly with IR light. The character of the background blur is nice, will be a contender for wide portraits.
a bit difficult to judge because of the low contrast lighting, but yes - it seems to be sharp into the corners and without nasty reflections. I hope you can take some snaps outside in good lighting (sun, trees, clouds etc.). Looks great... if it was significantly wider I would probably buy a NEX5N with this lens as soon as they are available here.
The portrait is interesting for me, the noise pattern is a lot nicer than on my 717 with low contrast indoor lighting (as expected, but you never know ...). I'm sure you could torture the files a lot more than I can.
The portrait is interesting for me, the noise pattern is a lot nicer than on my 717 with low contrast indoor lighting (as expected, but you never know ...). I'm sure you could torture the files a lot more than I can.
Hi Phaelix,
that is very interesting, thank you!
It is really surprising that you get strong colour at 830nm.
My 720nm Pentax with the "classic" 6MP Sony chip shows magenta with in-camera WB, but Lightroom can do a WB just fine.
If I mount my 850nm on my Pentax, the WB is no problem and the shot is almost pure B&W after doing WB in Lightroom.
I think this leaves only two possibilities:
The Bayer filter is indeed as you say very different in IR transmission on the NEX.
I have heard of a lot of cameras that become basically B&W for wavelengths above 850nm, so this is very surprising.
Second possibility would be that Spencer accidentally installed a ~720nm filter However, you seem to be getting rather strong IR effect even on overcast days, so that's unlikely.
How long did the conversion take (I assume you selected the "no rush" service?
Would it be possible for you to provide a RAW shot of some foliage and sky for us to play with?
Cheers
Jens
--
'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
that is very interesting, thank you!
It is really surprising that you get strong colour at 830nm.
My 720nm Pentax with the "classic" 6MP Sony chip shows magenta with in-camera WB, but Lightroom can do a WB just fine.
If I mount my 850nm on my Pentax, the WB is no problem and the shot is almost pure B&W after doing WB in Lightroom.
I think this leaves only two possibilities:
The Bayer filter is indeed as you say very different in IR transmission on the NEX.
I have heard of a lot of cameras that become basically B&W for wavelengths above 850nm, so this is very surprising.
Second possibility would be that Spencer accidentally installed a ~720nm filter
However, you seem to be getting rather strong IR effect even on overcast days, so that's unlikely.How long did the conversion take (I assume you selected the "no rush" service?
Would it be possible for you to provide a RAW shot of some foliage and sky for us to play with?
Cheers
Jens
--
'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
I was surprised too- I went into the conversion expecting pure black and white. I've since found that I get much less colour on overcast days, and the colour conversion is... complicated. Some images I just cannot get to produce colour, either because I don't have the skills or because the colour ain't in there.
It's a bit of a mystery. On some levels I wouldn't put it past Spencers' to do the wrong conversion, but the general strength of the IR effect leads me to think that it's probably an 830 filter... perhaps with just a shade of leakage.I think this leaves only two possibilities:
The Bayer filter is indeed as you say very different in IR transmission on the NEX.
I have heard of a lot of cameras that become basically B&W for wavelengths above 850nm, so this is very surprising.
Second possibility would be that Spencer accidentally installed a ~720nm filter
Oh man, so long. Like three months, easy. And Spencers' customer service is terrible.
I'd be more than happy to provide, but I don't think dpreview hosts RAW files? Or does it?
It's funny you should say that- the contrast was actually pretty high. I think it's just a result of the inherently low contrast I was talking about earlier. The cloud in the centre of frame is in full sunlight, while the bricks at the bottom of frame are heavily shadowed (I'm at the bottom of a valley of skyscrapers looking up here, with no nearby direct light bouncing in).
Hi Phaelix!
I see it all the time with my converted camera, so wouldn't worry too much.
Cheers
Jens
--
'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
Yes, this sounds familiar.
Sometimes colours are just not nice or strong - this happens in IR, too
I see it all the time with my converted camera, so wouldn't worry too much.
Agreed.
Sorry to hear that. From their website they surely seem to know a thing or two about the technicalities with some interesting options, including astro photography.
It doesn't AFAIK - but you can use a free file hoster like mediafire. (Assuming that you do not have a personal web space.)
Cheers
Jens
--
'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum