A converted G1 would be terrific--just slip in the second body to be able to use as normal shooting or IR. My converted IR body is a Canon 10D which is almost as big as my 5D. While it is good with all lenses but my 12-24, having to carry 2 systems, one as big as EOS, is a pain and it usually gets left behind. The 2/G1 would be wonderful.
I watched the buy/sell and found a G1 body only to buy. Now my regular shooter is blue and my IR is black. Makes it very easy to grab the right one from the bag. Diane, you are right. It is so nice that they can share the lenses. The whole kit with a few lenses fits in a Domke F2. The two bodies with small lenses mounted, will fit in the Terraclime 100.
Cindy, The Olympus D 17/2.8, I think, would give you "strange" results. From my initial experiments, this lens appears to have very good IR reflective coatings (front and rear).
The real pen F lenses should do very well (even compared to the Pana kit zoom).
Metering is going to be the most important thing. The exposure varies according to the subject and the IR content.
Here is an old (ie, from last year) snap using a D80-IR (Hoya R-72) and a Tamron 35-70 zoom. The stones were wet from the sea.
Cindy, That seems to be correctly exposed.
(btw, the IR reflective coatings on the m4/3rds lenses are really something. They appear to be quite efficient).
I tried following the directions but honestly got a bit lost on step 4. Here is what I've got...not sure what the issue is on the upper right. I may have to get a G1 or something else converted. The sky on these small sensor jpegs is nothing to write home about.
I converted a Nikon D100 and shot with it and I've used a Nikon D300 unconverted. What I found was that the converted camera images were better, sharper, despite the 6 to 12 megapixel difference, though it must be said the AA filter is removed from the D100 as it is cemented to the IR filter. Oddly sharper, (despite the 6 megapixel versus 12 difference. IMO, simply putting an IR filter on a non-converted camera is not quite as good as using a converted unit. Plus, there is the advantage of fast exposures which for foliage and trees helps as wind won't blur them unless you are after that effect. I've got a G1 and might get another one and convert my current one. Converting the D100 was a cinch, I hope the G1 is about as simple. Also, some lenses were clearly better for IR work. Using an adapter and a 50mm Takumar on the Nikon produced pleasing results while some modern lenses were less pleasing, likely due to lens coating differences, plastic lens elements in the new lenses.
Last edited by woodmancy; 9th August 2009 at 05:10.
I updated with my website with a re-worked version after getting hints from Vivek. My photo here was updated automatically. The version that Vivek was commenting on had much less detail.
I kind of got off on the wrong foot on the exposures. The book that I had read (and some web sites) indicated that you should just have a good histogram (which I did,--showed no blown highlights). It turns out with my G1 IR, I need to dial down the exposure to hold the detail.
Is that corner like that on every shot?
Did you get hung up on saving the preset in step 4?
Did you try shifting any colors in hue/sat adj panel? I'm thinking you might change the color of the bridge to make it pop out. That, of course, is a creative decision. That is the part that makes the IR photos fun. Like Carl pointed out in his summer/fall/winter/spring series, you can have many different effects in the same photo.
I agree--about a converted camera. Mine is also a 6MP (the 10D) and is much better to shoot with than a camera with filter (which I did for years with a variety of cameras--one of which, the D60, was awful for IR). The 10D is very good with most all my EF lenses (as opposed to a number having hot spots with the Hoya R72)--and of course handholding is easy, metering is good. My problem is usually not wanting to carry 2 biggish bodies (with the 5D) and now with the G1 it means carrying 2 systems. So--I've not done a lot of IR shooting since I first had it converted about a year and half ago. I need to haul it out and use it more--this is the right time of the year to do interesting IR images.
Cindy, the dark corner seems to be in the shots and when changing the colors gets accentuated. Also, my lens doesn't seem smooth in the zoom. I may ship it back to get checked out.
I wanted to do exactly what you said: 1)make the bridge pop and 2)make the building whiter and get rid of the greenish cast. I got stuck when she was talking about using the dropper to tweak to colors. I obviously wasn't using that layer correctly as I couldn't isolate any changes. Was going to do some additional reading up today.
Terry, You have to work on it in layers to get the best effect.
I think if you use the sampler from the hue/sat adj tool to sample the sky, then you can shift the sky toward red a little and it will darken a bit. Then merge visible layers. Now do a curves adj layer to make the bridge pop. Put a slight S curve on it. Merge again. Now you could try desaturating with a channel mixer layer. Use the mask that it makes and fill it with black. That will bring your original colors back. Take a brush and make it max soft. Use that to paint in the bottom parts that you want more desaturated. Now adjust the opacity till you bring back just a little color. You can work on the building to get what effect you want on it on another layer.
This should be what you want, not what I would do. I'm just trying to give you a starting point idea.
Did Precision Camera adjust the AF for IR? From your images, it looks like they have done a nice job on the G1 IR conversion. Does the dust system still work on the G1 after the conversion?
I have used Canon and Nikon IR converted cameras, both done professionally by maxmax. The price charged by Precision seems to be much lower than other IR conversion services. Would you recommend them for converting the G1?
The interesting thing about the m4/3rds is that once the infinity is set, there should be no need for focus adjustments ( for any wavelength) unlike a regular DSLR or even a RF system.
You could also try something that isn't at infinity to verify if that holds good.
200/3.5 (F3AF) Nikkor on D80-IR.
Cindy, Are you finding any significant differences in exposure times between visible and IR?
I don't focus on infinity all the time. In the last photo of the pine trees, I'm sure that I focused closer to the near bushes that I included.
I have not compared exposure times of my two G1's. I will try to do that in the next couple of weeks and report back to you. I can tell you that the G1 IR is easily handholdable, but I did use a tripod for all but one of the photos that I posted in this thread.