Jack (or whoever else knows) -
I'm considering getting an IR-converted GH1. Is the sensor the same as the one in the GF1? Is there any reason to believe an IR conversion will work any less well on a GH1?
I use the 14-140 zoom lens - has anyone here tried that lens on an IR-ized GF1 or GH1 to check for hot spots or other problems?
Lisa, There are no indications that the GH1's NMOS sensor would behave any differently than that of the G1 when it comes to IR.
However, all GF1 IR converted (Precision) have no dust shaker left in them. So, it is possible that an IR converted GH1 will also be without its dust shaker.
No experience on the 14-140 for IR. I do not like the 45-200 for IR. Way too soft (a manifestation of the "hot spot", flare, etc). I would suspect that the 14-140 will behave very similarly to the 45-200.
I am quite happy with it. I have used mainly the 7-14mm and several wide legacy lenses with absolutely no problems. I took a few pics with the 14-140mm, but only on the wide end. No hot spots to report.
Precision actually requests the lens you will be primarily using to be sent in with the camera for calibration.....I followed Cindy Flood's advice and sent in my 7-14.....I am glad I did.
It was great advice (thanks Cindy).
Take a look at the following thread for some photos taken with a converted G1.
Newcomer to GetDPI here. But as some of you know I've been around digital IR for a while. Several years ago I was doing IR conversions commercially, but these days I'm happier back concentrating on actually making images.
Here's one of my favourite IR landscapes, taken on a PowerShot Pro1 with 715nm filter:
I'm currently waiting to get my Panasonic G1 back from conversion at Spencer's Camera & Photo with a clear "full spectrum" filter. I'll be using a variety of external filters on it: B+W 486 for "normal" images, and 720nm and 830nm filters for IR. This setup doesn't work for DSLRs, but with EVIL cameras is perfect.
Unfortunately the Lumix 7-14mm doesn't take external filters, but once the camera checks out with the 14-45mm lens I have plans to take on an Olympus 9-18mm (which does take filters).
wrote about this last year.
Using a custom DNG profile in LR/ACR is great for this. But note that most IR shots can use the same WB!
So once you've set the profile in the Camera Calibration tab and chosen an appropriate WB you can save these in a LR Develop Preset and quickly apply them to the relevant shots. In fact, you can save these as part of a new Camera Raw Default for both systems.
This works great if the default applies just to your modified camera (for example if the tuple of model/serial identifies that camera). Unfortunately ACR is not able to detect the serial number of μ4/3 cameras (I don't think they put it into the EXIF at all) and thus if you set a new default for DMC-GF1 it would apply to images from all GF1 cameras (unless the images already had XMP data: it's only used when things are being reset to default).
Where I'm using converted DSLRs where ACR can identify the individual camera this works wonderfully. Import the RAW files, and the hard work is already done! The WB I saved as part of the default is usually fine, although sometimes I will tweak it a bit to suit the way I want to process the image. There's no "additional step in the workflow".
Unfortunately resetting the Camera Raw Default isn't going to work well for my G1, as the filters (and thus appropriate DNG Profile) may differ from shot to shot. I expect to be making big use of LR's Develop Presets...
Thanks David.......very informative. Fantastic info on the Khromagery site too...
Welcome to the 21st century!
You would find that B+W 486 won't cut it for the NMOS sensor. Its IR sensitivity is sky high.
David, Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting your beautiful false color IR shot.
Yeah, unfortunately the in-camera WB is outside the range that the ACR dual-illuminant DNG profile engine can cope with (below "2000" Temp). At least there is a solution available.
When working with your camera, how often do you set a new custom WB? I've found with most IR-modified cameras that once you've set a WB you tend to stick to that (and Auto WB in IR has never been good for me). In that case using a fixed WB in the ACR default shouldn't be a hardship.
However, I usually work with filters of IR cutoffs of either 715nm or 830nm. Filters such as 695nm and 665nm let in more visible light, and thus I suppose it's possible that you'd be wanting to switch WB around a bit more... (?)
I will echo what Vivek said re the GH1 sensor -- while different, should not present any significant problem, but the folks at Precision are very good and will work with you to get it right.
As for the 14-140, it is a very decent lens and I only recall seeing slight and occasional hot spotting at the shorter focals, like 14 through 18 or so. Since that and the 20 primes ride on my color GF1, I keep the little 14-45 kit lens pretty much on my IR GH1 at all times. Regardless, the 14-140 hot-spotting isn't huge and probably will present only an occasional problem. I am thinking it actually may be more flare dependent than anything, meaning it shows up most when shooting wide toward a bight light source...
On those DNG profiles I don't care what Temp/Tint values are reported (as long as they're not at their limits) as it doesn't have to match the behaviour of the profile for any other camera.
I've been happy with the results from ACR by themselves, rather than comparing to the JPEGs the cameras produce. The only reason I've changed the camera's WB is to get images that are representative of the final result (and with sensible histograms) but I did start out with a workflow where I would process them heavily through Photoshop and thus didn't expect a perfect match. The Photoshop action I made years ago is still useful, and can be downloaded from here. In the last year I've been getting images out of ACR with most of that work already done, and haven't expected a perfect match to the cameras' JPEGs.
Also most of my IR work has been in monochrome, although with the G1 I expect to dabble a bit more in false-colour work so things may change a bit for me.
Re C1 workflow. Seriously, it is so easy to do the IR raw conversions in C1 it is almost ridiculous. I set up a "style" that uses the camera's internal WB and applies my standard sharpening and NR settings. All I do is apply that style to the group of images and process them out. It would be candy easy to add styles for any other filtration, and in fact I have one for the GF1 with the 092 cut filter when used over the lens of my GF1 IR.
Anyway, once the C1 batch out is done, I load them into CS and run one of the 7 actions from my action set on them -- one false color and 6 various monochrome and partial monochrome treatments -- any of which are also easy to batch. Then it's a minor tweak to the Hue/Sat adjustment layer for the false color as needed -- though I have a Hue/Sat custom setting saved and have my action call that up automatically, so any further tweaks are usually not needed. Then a final tweak to the output curve layer to adjust global contrast as needed and I am basically done, except for any local editing that may be required...
BTW, I did some tests comparing similar photos of the GH1+14-140 with my previous camera, a Nikon D300 with the 18-200 VR DX lens, and it's very difficult to tell the difference in quality.
P.S. To DavidB: I *love* the African IR photo. It's a fantastic subject, and the colors go with it well. Cool stuff!
Short answer, is yes and no.
With a Baader Planetarium 2" fringe killer filter (pricey) and custom WB, it comes close but not there yet.
With the B+W filter you could try adding a cyan filter. BG39 and the like. I will check those combos shortly.
..and David, I look forward to your pictorial contributions!
Carl, When I have a box (cubic meter area) full of real bandpass filters bought from the sources, why would I bother with re-badged/overpriced/incorrectly specified thingies?
I suspect you'll find that MaxMax's CC1 *is* Schott BG39 glass...
May be. The "CC2" could be Schott KG5 and the "X-nite" could be Hoya U330.
I have them (the real things) all (in various sizes and thicknesses) and more.
Here is another one with the GH-1 + 7-14mm.
Converted in C1 and added "false color" Jack's action. Thanks to all who contribute regularly on this thread. It certainly hastens the learning curve.
From this morning at the Mission, San Juan Bautista California
+3........I've visited the Mission before.....this is just a wonderful shot.
Terry -- AWESOME CAPTURE!
Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
Thanks all! The GF1 really is quite a nice camera for IR. I had it tucked into my handbag with the Oly 14-42 which is very small when collapsed.
Your IR is just a terrific shot here. Just guessing from Uwe that the dominant tree would not be a plus in a normal b & w. I like the ocmposition quite a lot.
Interesting thread. I just picked up a IR coverted G1. Unfortunately I use V4 of C1 and the G1 isn't supported, so I'll have to play around a bit to try for false color images. Here's one of my first, B&W, shot with the Contax G 45/2.
Here's one with the 20/1.7...I noticed that this lens doesn't achieve infinity focus when shooting IR, until it's stopped down. Makes focusing a pain.
I'll have to play with it a bit more and see how big an issue this is.
Can you not ask the previous owner and through them Spencer? When the registry isn't set properly, there isn't much one can do, unfortunately.
See here for a few samples taken with f/0.95 lenses:
The Pana 20/1.7 works beautifully even wide open at infinity, btw. Stopping down below f/3.2, you tend to lose a bit of details.
I may just search around locally to see if anyone can recalibrate the G1. Worse case I'll just use it with my other lenses for now, they seem to work OK.
How did you go with that testing?With a Baader Planetarium 2" fringe killer filter (pricey) and custom WB, it comes close but not there yet.
With the B+W filter you could try adding a cyan filter. BG39 and the like. I will check those combos shortly.
At the moment I'm not sure about your assertion that the B+W 486 lets through too much IR.
I finally got my camera back last week and have only had limited opportunities to test it, but my testing so far shows decent performance for visible-light work with the 486 filter on. It doesn't match the behaviour of the original internal IR filters exactly, so the default WB settings don't work, but custom WB does a pretty good job.
Going further, custom DNG profiles combined with custom WB (using a Colorchecker Passport) do a great job.
Without the 486 filter there is definite IR "contamination" reflected from various subjects, but with it I haven't noticed any. Even though it's winter at the moment I do have some IR-strong light sources in my studio.
Filters such as the BG39 do their work by absorption, while the 486 does its work by reflection. The IR-blocking filters in most digital cameras involve both (in dual-filter setups like the G-system sensors where the front filter vibrates dust away, the "front" filter is the one with an IR-reflective surface. Absorption filters usually also introduce a cyan cast to the visible wavelengths, and looking down the mount at the sensor it's obvious that this colour cast has gone.
Rather than the sensor being SO IR-sensitive that the 486 "isn't enough", do you think it might be just that this visible cast is throwing off the camera's default WB mechanism?
The primary purpose for my G1 is as an IR camera, but with the B+W 486 filter it's also producing visible images I'm happy with so far.
It did not get anywhere as I am yet to find time to organize everything.
The dust shaker in G1 is completely transparent to IR. All the filtration is done from the glass stack that is in the middle. The sensor has a fixed glass (~1mm thick), the AA/UV/IR cut stack (2.75mm thick) and then the dust shaker (~1mm thick). The middle stack is both absorptive and reflective towards IR. I have shown pics of that (visible/UV and IR).
It is not just color balancing that is problematic. Even if that is taken care of and an image is apparently devoid of IR contamination, there is considerable amount of chromatic aberrations, color fringing and such that pose problems.
For me, it easier to use another (unmodified) G1 (prices are so low, it is cheaper to do that than buying band pass filters).
I am not in the financial position to get 2 GF1's (one normal, one IR), but curious to see how far you would get with just an IR filter on top of GF1 (or LX3). Or is that not worth a try at all?
Joe, this is similar to what I've done with my G1. It's been converted with quartz (i.e. it lets full IR+visible in, which you can control with external filters). It's not as convenient to use for visible-light photography as an unconverted camera (mainly due to trickiness with WB) but gives much better IR results than an unconverted camera.
But if you just want to experiment, get an IR filter (e.g. an R72-ish one) and try it on the front of your un-modified camera. You'll probably need to use a tripod to cope with the long exposures, but it's a cheap experiment.
Incidentally, I saved myself some serious $$ today. At the PMA show (it's on in Melbourne at the moment) I tried an M.Zuiko 9-18mm on my modified G1. I'd been thinking I might get hold of one of these. One of its benefits for me is that the filter thread is the same as that on the 14-45mm lens.
But no, I won't be getting one: with just a 720nm IR filter on the end it will not focus any further away than a couple of metres! The flare in IR is quite nasty too.
I suppose I could modify my camera further by moving the sensor forward slightly, but to bring this lens in range I might end up stuffing up operation with the 14-45mm. I'll leave well enough alone (at least for now).
The staff on the Olympus stand obviously didn't quite understand why I was attaching filters and wanting to try the lens on my G1, but they were happy to indulge me. Actually I don't think they caught up at all, still talking about being happy to sell a lens to a "fellow μ4/3 user" when I'd finished and was walking away. The words "won't focus to infinity" didn't really seem to register...
If the focus isn't going past 2 meters, I would blame the (botched) camera conversion. See posts #137 onwards.
Agree. There can be some slight loss of true infinity focus, but it is usually so slight that normal DoF handles it.
Pulling this thread back from the dead. Wonderful shots in here. Since I've preordered the OM-D I wanted to convert my GF1 to IR and thankfully found this thread. I'm email Precision Camera tonight about having it done. I thought about picking up a newer camera, but since I have 4 (now 5) batteries for the GF1 and the view finder seems like I should just stick with it. I found a mint condition Red GF1 at my local used shop for only $100 US so I picked that up and it's going to get used for the conversion. My beater will keep me busy until March 30th. Really looking forward to getting it back now.
Charles - flickr
With the colour IR shots, you can get a normal colour balance or close to normal on everything except folliage which stands out in sharp purple contrast.