Does a Hoya R72 filter compete with a converted infrared camera?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 сер 2022
- In this episode, I'll compare a camera already converted for infrared against one using a Hoya R72 filter. What are the differences and the surprise conclusions.
I'm still blaming or possibly thanking #thomasheaton for setting me down this path.
Soundstripe number MLIUDBIB4NRHBIDR
Like most people, I started with the filter. Now I have a full spectrum camera with about 7 IR filters. Doing photography in the middle of the day while most other photographers have left is great. Just remember to have fun with the editing.
Thanks, Randy. I went back and forth about getting a full spectrum camera or not. I ended up getting a good price on a slightly used camera that worked with all my current lenses. It's a 7200 but since I really wanted it mostly for black and white conversions, I figured that would be my best option until I see if it was something I wanted to explore more than the occasional walk in the park. I might opt for the full spectrum down the road. Good luck and thanks for the comment and watch.
Great advice and wisdom
That’s interesting, my brother converted an old Nikon (converted as in removed the ir filter from the sensor), but we still need crazy iso or long shutter speeds, natural light alone often doesn’t cut it. Also the shot comes out very red like your shots with just the filter
Thanks for watching and commenting. I'm not sure of the entire process of how to convert a camera, but I believe there is another step. Also there are different types of conversions. Once you have an image that you're happy with you can get or make a profile for your camera as well as having several ways of processing the files. There a many channels that explain the entire process. One channel that does a great job explaining it all is Rob Shea. He has an excellent channel dedicated to infrared.
Thanks so much.. this topic is so interesting to me as well as informative
Thanks for watching and commenting.
I have two Canon 5D cameras, one has been converted to infrared @ 720nm. If I use a Hoya R72 (720nm) on the unconverted camera, the difference is a lower level of contrast. This is because of low level bleed through of light from the upper visible spectrum - and that is OK, it still looks great, but a different look when compared to the converted camera. I actually like the longer exposures necessary with the R72, it’s all good!
Thanks for the info and comment, William. I wonder if it can change with the camera body as well? I would think that it would. I am finding that I possibly get better contrast with the Hoya filter on the Z7II than I do with the converted camera body, even though it's a Nikon Z50. I'll bet each camera body is a bit different. It's interesting to play around with them and find out though so that you can achieve the results you're looking for in the image. I've been using the converted camera more just for convenience, but I haven't sold my filter and don't plan on doing it anytime soon. Thanks again.
@@MichaelCantwell The Hoya R72 is regarded as the best over the lens 720nm IR filter out there, and would perform exceptionally well with a full spectrum converted mirrorless camera.
I recommend a full spectrum modified mirrorless camera any sensor size. In short here is why, you can use any infrared filter. You can also use cut filter to shoot normal visible light. You just lose the ability of having auto white balance with the camera. Not really a big deal. Secondly, you can shoot a number of vintage lenses and not be tied to a brand. Just research the lens and make sure it doesn't have hot spots and learn how to test for it when shooting. Infrared.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I do agree that after using both for over a year, I much prefer a modified camera. As far as the full spectrum or something else, I guess that's up the individual user. I think the big advantage to the camera over the filter is being able to use regular shutter speeds as opposed to pretty much always much slower ones with the filter system.
On Olympus cameras the art mode has a color wheel and the infrared filter works sooc.
Nice results! It is certainly a major difference having access to those faster shutterspeeds. Sometimes the long exposures effects are nice, like when shooting waterfalls, but otherwise it can be stifling.
I agree. I think the biggest difference is the shutter speeds. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Awesome! THANK YOU!
Thanks for watching.
thank you!
You're welcome and thanks for watching.
Well done bro👍👍👍
Well done sir
Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching.
The Hoya filter had more contrast but a longer shutter speed and a nicer image. I'm thinking of converting an older Sony a7 do you have any input.
Thanks for the comment, Bob. I think both have their place. If I had to choose, I'd go with the converted camera, but for someone who only wants to try infrared now and again, the filter works great.
If you have Sony GM glass, buy something different. GM glass is terrible for IR. Lots of hot spots and the 16-35 has real soft edges wider than 24 mm. I use a Rokinon 24 mm, a canon 40 mm pancake and the Lensbaby velvet lenses. The GM 100-400 isn't bad so I will use that one. Prime lenses work the best for IR. The darker the filter, the worse the hotspots. My 830 nm filter can create bad hotspots but the 470 nm hyper color doesn't have any.
@@randybottphotography I have Nikon Z glass. It's why I ended up with the camera that I did in the Z50. It's an entry level camera that allows me to use my Nikon glass that I use with my main camera, the Z7II. I did another video showing which lenses I think work best for infrared. BTW, it's the 50mm F1.8 starting at around F5.6. That lens is wonderful and even works great with infrared. I might go to full frame down the road and a full spectrum camera, but for now, I'm learning on the Z50 and my current lenses. Once the heat of summer simmers a touch, I plan on using it more at the beach to see what I can get with ocean views. Thanks for the heads up with the Sony lenses.
I have a Harrison Infrared filter. Any chance it's more or less identical to the Hoya R72 filter?
Hi Scott, I've not tried the Harrison filter. Since they designed to block a certain type of light, I would assume it should be close. You might want to search out Rob Shea here on UA-cam. He does many infrared videos and might know the answer to your question. Thanks for watching.
@@MichaelCantwell - THANKS -
Nobody shows the filter very well. Is it a red filter like the film infrared filters? I happen to have one from my 70's photography. If you have plant life indoors by a window on a sunny day is that workable? Thanks, and I subbed.
I'm not an expert in filters and I rarely used a red filter back in the film days, however, no I don't think it's exactly the same as using a red filter. It has more of an orange tint to it and I would guess some of the qualities of the filter is different from a red filter. Maybe someone else could speak more on that than me. Yes, the idea is for sure to block the light. My testing was only to see how using a filter on a regular camera differed from a converted camera. The converted camera allows for much faster shutter speeds since it's not designed to block the light the same way the filter is designed. Not sure how much I answered you, but I tried. Thanks for watching and subscribing. I'm coming out with another infrared video later today. Thanks again.
Hi, i'm new in this genre of photography. i have a Nikon APS-C DSLR converted camera. But my question is(or where i have a problem) is that i can't have a sharp photo, it's like the focus is not done right. I use the auto focus of the camera but the photos are not sharp, How you arrive to nail the focus in infrared photography?
Hard to know your issue without knowing if your lens is the problem, the camera or even the way you're focusing. It could be you're not understanding the camera's focus system. I assume it has focus points? You might want to try focusing in manual and see if your images improve. If they do, then see if you can learn more about the camera's focusing system. The last thing might be the conversion wasn't done correctly, but I would assume that would be the last thing that would be wrong. I hope that helps.
@@MichaelCantwell Thanks for the advice, I use the normal back button focus with single point and a shutter speed of 1/500. I use a Nikon D300 so with one of the sharpest DX lens 16-85 mm f3.5 - 5.6 with a aperture at f8-f11. Using this lens with a Nikon D5100 normal camera, not IR, the lens is very sharp.
The test could have been better. My suggestions:
- Try to get the same composition
- Overlay the 3 pictures as 3 layers in Photoshop and position compositions straight above eachother.
- Make all 3 black and white. 0 saturation.
- The IR converted cam is clearly the best, so take that as reference. Now: adjust exposure, contrast and levels and try to get as close to the converted image as you can.
Than we can truly see how much you gain with the conversion. Of course, ease of use can be a component, but not the only one.
Side question I have for myself. Owning a new A7s III and FX6 they have double base ISO one at 128k or 64.000 depending on the mode. I'm wondering if I do crank the iso up what will happen.
the 3rd shot was amazing i mean the one with the house
Thanks and thanks for checking out the video.
very interesting IR? its not something i’d thought about - I use the Z7 II - so how do you you use it for IR?
Hi James. Thanks for watching. Unless your camera is converted for IR, you need a filter. I use the Hoya 72 filter on the Nikon Z7II, however the filter slows down the shutter speeds so really you need a static subject. I also have a converted camera which allows the shutter speeds to be normal speeds as if you didnt have any filter on the camera.
@@MichaelCantwell thank you 🙏
@@jamesss1953 You're welcome. Please like and subscribe, I'm sure more infrared videos will be coming soon.
@@MichaelCantwell I've just liked and subscribed ~ it's an interest for me, like the finished image. Although not sure about a for ever renovation of my Z7 I I though 🥴
@@jamesss1953 Thanks.. No, I wouldn't convert my main camera body either. Try the filters to start then if you really enjoy it, consider buying a converted body. You can always get a Z50 or Z5 and use all your Nikon glass. I found that the 50mm S lens works best for IR, though the 24-120 S lens works well to once you get out near 40mm and F8, otherwise you get hot spots in the center of the image.
Right now, I use 720nm and 950nm infrared filters.
Your camera was converted to how many nm?
thanks for watching.. 720
Thanks. I recently got an R72 and have started to experiment, so far only making straight conversions to B&W (in Silver Efex Pro). I'm not sure how to get the "false color" effect (pale blue, orange-brown, sepia, etc.) seen with converted cameras as simply desaturating the red has so far simply produced greyscale results with dark skies and selected foliage in white. Maybe other than a 720-nm filter would make a difference. I like some of the images but it's an adjustment--obviously thinking in IR is as different from thinking in B&W as B&W is from color and you always have to think long-exposure with the R72 (not a huge fan of that with visible light--it's been so overdone as to have become largely cliché but there are cases where it works). At this point, I have no plans to convert a camera, but I haven't ruled that out at some point. Certainly, IR can produce some interesting images, but I'll have to see what "staying power" it has.
A full spectrum camera will offer far more color options over the 720 filter. If you want black and white, then the 720 is really all you need. If you want a wider color spectrum then other filter choices would work better. Thanks for the comment and watching.
You can get different color variations with the R72 with different channel swaps and color adjustments, there is enough color information at 720nm to be flexible. There are dozens of videos on youtube.
@@JEDINITE30 Yes, I'm aware and have swapped channels on many of my images. I mostly try to get high contrast black and white images, which means the colors arent always that important to me. Thanks for watching and commenting.
I can help you with that.
Use Photoshop.
1) Adjust levels so the darkest color is pure black and the lightest color is pure white. Adjust mid level to taste.
2) Add the effect 'Gradient Map' in the Layers window. Make a fals color using a gradient. You can slide the positions of a certain color close together to have less gradual changes.
@@tomghzel Thanks a lot, but I'm not an Adobe user (DxO/Topaz/PSP). I should be able to replicate anything that PS can do in PSP, but I've barely used it so I guess I'll have to experiment (I'm on the low end of the learning curve, as I've generally treated digital much the way I did film--and "layers" wasn't in my darkroom workflow). I expect that there are also solutions via PhotoLab and Nik as well.
I was very curious about this… great work
Thanks for watching and commenting. Good luck.
Without going through all the comments, let me say that it’s difficult to compare the 2 different IR types without knowing the specifics of the converted camera. Which frequency was the Z50 converted to? I’d say probably not 720nm, because the image doesn’t have the red-orange cast the externally filtered camera has. Or, if it is a 720nm conversion, I’m going to say you had a custom white balance set.
I have experience with 2 IR cameras; an older D70 which was converted to a 720nm IR camera, and a D200 which has been converted to Life Pixel’s deep IR. This camera only renders monochrome. Your Z50 images were color IR, and the Z7ii were monochrome. Not really a fair comparison. But that said I like it when IR information gets out there; good job!
Thanks for watching and commenting. Both the filter and camera are 720mm. I think I mentioned that in the video, but if not then I apoligize. Both the camera and filter were used to create the monochrome and a color. If not in that video but in others for sure. It's a fair point however that each should used for one or the other.
But surely if you put a 720nm filter on a normal unconverted camera you have the situation that the 720 filter will only let IR thru, while that built into most cameras is there to stop any IR reaching the sensor. So the two filters are competing against each other, resulting in the longer shutter speeds. Best is a camera converted to Full Spectrum, removing the internal filter, combined with IR filters on the lens front, with values from 520 thru 850nm. You don't need tests to show this, it's basic optical technology. I use a cheap Panasonic G5 converted to Full Spectrum.
That seems to be the best option for many. I prefer the 7200 because I mainly wanted to use it for high contrast black and white and I didn't want to mess with other filters had I converted to a full spectrum camera. I ended up getting a converted 7200 camera body and for the most part I've been pleased. No doubt at times a full spectrum would've been better but I'm pleased with my decision with my ZED 50 camera body :)
@@MichaelCantwell two Countries divided by a common language !
@@danMdan so true :)
converted camera looks more detailed and life like.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I agree if you do get serious about infrared then a converted camera is the way to go in my opinion.
Your just getting less light at 12 bits, you could always press Auto White Balance, Its really just so 8 bit monitors make things crisper, cleaner. Every commercial is a company, every company is a cleaning solution clearing house. If you go down to fundamentals, like "just buy a sony a6500, it costs less and you die younger."
The filter shot seems hotter in the center.
Hi John, it's possible. If I remember, I shot them with the 50mm S lens. If you look at my other video where I discuss which lenses work best with that filter and with straight infrared cameras, you will notice the 50mm S lens might be the best Nikon lens for infrared use. If you stay in the F8 range, it can work with no hot spots. I did find that with other lenses there were hot spots.
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’.
I do wish you Americans would pronounce the letter Z properly, ZED and not ZEE !
Ha. If you listen to more of my videos you will occasionally call it Zed for my friends across the pond :) Thanks for watching.
@@MichaelCantwell id love to send you a sample pic, how do i do it?
@@danMdan send me and email. go to my website or look at the about section on my channel here and the email will be listed. I don't want the bots to see it so easily if i post it here but yes would love to see one and put it in the Feb image of the month video if you want to do that as well.