RichA
New member
Tried converted/non-converted IR cameras
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.
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.