Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    320
    Post Thanks / Like

    IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Given the developments in IR cut filter technology and mirrorless cameras that leak IR light less and leave less to chance than earlier filter and camera combos did, is it still worthwhile investing in a filter like the Hoya R72 to experiment with IR photography on a modern mirrorless camera like the Sony A7RII/III etc - or is there so little information remaining for the sensor to grab after the OEM factory built-in IR cut filter on top of the sensor and the R72 filter mounted in front of the lens has cut off as much as they do that trying this turns out to be the digital photography equivalent of going on a couch safari without leaving the living room?

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    9,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    As it's always been with IR filters, you pick one and fit it, and then you experiment to see what you can get from it with a given camera.

    G

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    320
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    As it's always been with IR filters, you pick one and fit it, and then you experiment to see what you can get from it with a given camera.

    G
    Good point! My hope is that since as you say, this is how it's always been, then somebody here who has already tried this may be willing to share their experiences?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Hi Peter
    I thought I might copy my answer to your private message here as well, just in case somebody is interested.

    Any normal digital camera just won't work with digital filters because every "normal" sensor has an IR-cut filter in front of the sensor.
    So if you put an IR-filter in front of the lens, you just get pretty underexposed files with very little detail, there's hardly anything you can do with them creatively.
    The only solution really is to have the IR-filter removed from the sensor, otherwise it is a waste of time!
    In fact I had great results with my old Sony A6000, IR-converted by Kolari Vision in the USA, which I have since sold here on GetDPI.
    I can absolutely recommend them. You can buy a converted camera on their website or send your own camera and have it converted:
    https://kolarivision.com/
    You find plenty of great information there!
    The Sony mirrorless cameras are well suited for IR-photography, but only once they are converted.

    Best

    Jost
    Jost von Allmen
    Switzerland
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    9,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    For sure, the IR cut filter defeats some of the IR capabilities of the camera, and an IR pass filter nets a low illumination level to work with. The results depend on how tight the IR cut filter in a given camera/sensor assembly is. A specially prepared IR camera gives a whole different range of capabilities.

    But, that said, I've done a good bit of IR work over the past two decades with a wide range of digital cameras and obtained some very nice results with them. Particularly with a mirrorless camera, you can see what you're going to get and you can fool around with exposure values until you get results that work.

    That's why it's "fit the filter and play with it until you find how to get some satisfying results from it."

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,808
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    I used an unmodified Fuji X Pro2 and a near IR filter.







    Seems to work for me.

    Lenses can be more of a problem as some show hot spots.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    320
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by vonalpen View Post
    Hi Peter
    I thought I might copy my answer to your private message here as well, just in case somebody is interested.

    Any normal digital camera just won't work with digital filters because every "normal" sensor has an IR-cut filter in front of the sensor.
    So if you put an IR-filter in front of the lens, you just get pretty underexposed files with very little detail, there's hardly anything you can do with them creatively.
    The only solution really is to have the IR-filter removed from the sensor, otherwise it is a waste of time!
    In fact I had great results with my old Sony A6000, IR-converted by Kolari Vision in the USA, which I have since sold here on GetDPI.
    I can absolutely recommend them. You can buy a converted camera on their website or send your own camera and have it converted:
    https://kolarivision.com/
    You find plenty of great information there!
    The Sony mirrorless cameras are well suited for IR-photography, but only once they are converted.

    Best

    Jost
    Thanks for this good advice. I will try to see what I can do with a full-spectrum converted Sony Nex5R

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    320
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    For sure, the IR cut filter defeats some of the IR capabilities of the camera, and an IR pass filter nets a low illumination level to work with. The results depend on how tight the IR cut filter in a given camera/sensor assembly is. A specially prepared IR camera gives a whole different range of capabilities.

    But, that said, I've done a good bit of IR work over the past two decades with a wide range of digital cameras and obtained some very nice results with them. Particularly with a mirrorless camera, you can see what you're going to get and you can fool around with exposure values until you get results that work.

    That's why it's "fit the filter and play with it until you find how to get some satisfying results from it."

    G
    It is a good idea that I will try to do with a converted full spectrum Nex 5R that is not as expensive these days as a full frame camera but I hope good enough for experimenting with to see what is possible without having to sell my shirt and socks.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    320
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Well Shashin, if anybody can make this work then you with your wealth of experience doing alternative photography are the one who can!

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    I used an unmodified Fuji X Pro2 and a near IR filter.







    Seems to work for me.

    Lenses can be more of a problem as some show hot spots.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    9,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by lowep View Post
    It is a good idea that I will try to do with a converted full spectrum Nex 5R that is not as expensive these days as a full frame camera but I hope good enough for experimenting with to see what is possible without having to sell my shirt and socks.
    That was always my position doing this stuff. I never did enough IR work to be worth the cost of getting another body and having it converted, so I just used a couple of different IR filters and played around with them on the cameras I had. I seem to recall the Hoya R72 and a B+W filter (designation forgotten) were my favorites, and they worked best on different cameras.

    G

  11. #11
    Senior Member JoelM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA USA
    Posts
    672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by vonalpen View Post
    Hi Peter
    I thought I might copy my answer to your private message here as well, just in case somebody is interested.

    Any normal digital camera just won't work with digital filters because every "normal" sensor has an IR-cut filter in front of the sensor.
    So if you put an IR-filter in front of the lens, you just get pretty underexposed files with very little detail, there's hardly anything you can do with them creatively.
    The only solution really is to have the IR-filter removed from the sensor, otherwise it is a waste of time!
    In fact I had great results with my old Sony A6000, IR-converted by Kolari Vision in the USA, which I have since sold here on GetDPI.
    I can absolutely recommend them. You can buy a converted camera on their website or send your own camera and have it converted:
    https://kolarivision.com/
    You find plenty of great information there!
    The Sony mirrorless cameras are well suited for IR-photography, but only once they are converted.

    Best

    Jost
    Actually, my Leica M8 used to give pretty decent IR results.

    Joel

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    320
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Nothing new under the sun. Here is an informative guide (from LifePixel) about IR focus calibration options.

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,808
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    I think the two most important things when using a filter on an uncoverted camera was to set custom WB with foliage and to use exposure compensation. I find cameras underexpose IR images, reducing information. I have not had any real issues with focus, which is probably more of an issue using the focus scale on a manual focus lens than either the AF system or live view.

    I think the great thing is about starting with just an IR filter is it gives you some experience without having to convert your camera. The filter will still be needed if you do make the conversion. It is a great first step.

  14. #14
    Senior Member DougDolde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Joshua Tree, CA
    Posts
    1,049
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    I bought an I-Ray 830 from Singh Ray but it's so dark you need a 30 second or more exposure to make it work. Obviously even light wind will destroy the detail.

    Howard Cargill at Singh-Ray gives these instructions for use:

    For the 830nm filter you should follow these steps
    camera on a tripod
    set camera to manual and manual focus
    Set picture quality to Monochrome
    compose your scene and focus
    hold the lens in one hand to not move the focus ring and then screw on the 830nm filter with the other
    Infrared rays are shorter that normal light rays - so your focusing will be shortened - one of my lenses has an infinity focus of just beyond 15' - I back the focusing to just inside 15' (I have marked the lenses for reference) -there are currently only three lenses on the market that do not require the shortening of the focus (2 Nikon and 1 Canon)
    ISO starting point is 400
    Aperture f8
    Shutter speed is 35 seconds - bright sun

    They have agreed to let me exchange for the I-Ray 690 which needs only a 2-3 second exposure. I don't have it yet but we will see if it works.

    Obviously this is inferior to having the camera converted but buying a second GFX-50R for conversion is out of the question.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    59
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    three lenses on the market that do not require the shortening of the focus (2 Nikon and 1 Canon)
    What are those three lenses?

  16. #16
    Senior Member DougDolde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Joshua Tree, CA
    Posts
    1,049
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    What are those three lenses?
    He didn't say

  17. #17
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    619
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Life is short - unless you have a converted camera and live view - you are really wasting your time and money - even on a tripod (due to wind and any other vibration).

    If you want to make a commitment to IR and only have one camera - get a full spectrum conversion from Kolari and get a hot mirror filter from them (Kolari and Max Max filters are don't leak light like B+W 486 filters do). With the hot mirror your camera is back to "normal". Kolari also has a list on their web site of lenses that are problematic - have hot spots.

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    9,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by alajuela View Post
    Life is short - unless you have a converted camera and live view - you are really wasting your time and money - even on a tripod (due to wind and any other vibration).

    If you want to make a commitment to IR and only have one camera - get a full spectrum conversion from Kolari and get a hot mirror filter from them (Kolari and Max Max filters are don't leak light like B+W 486 filters do). With the hot mirror your camera is back to "normal". Kolari also has a list on their web site of lenses that are problematic - have hot spots.
    Are you making a huge amount of your income with IR photography? A dedicated camera for IR was never warranted by my paying photography work.

    G

  19. #19
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    619
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Are you making a huge amount of your income with IR photography? A dedicated camera for IR was never warranted by my paying photography work.

    G
    I understand that, and appreciate it. That is why a full spectrum and hot mirror filter will give the best of both worlds, and the best quality. I do think if it was easier to get sharp results, then people would experiment more.

    It can also be a "second" camera, an old one as long as it has live view. I am not suggesting one needs to go out and buy a second camera, but some people have more than one and with the Hot Mirror filter, you are not compromising the ability of the "second" camera to maintain its visible light capabilities. Yes you are right - there is the cost of conversion.

    It can even be a point and shoot.

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,808
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by alajuela View Post
    I do think if it was easier to get sharp results, then people would experiment more.
    Hand held using an unconverted camera and IR filter:



    I actually think long exposures not only result in sharp images, but the object motion is great to work with.





    But motion does not have to be that noticable.





    Sharpness is simply not a problem with using a stock camera and filter. Perhaps you don't like motion blur in objects, but that is a problem in regular landscape photography when maximizing DoF and minimizing ISO. Sure, if you want to maximize technical quality, a converted camera is best, but much can be done without a converted camera (see above).

    And one of the appeals of IR photography is not its sharpness, but its aesthetic qualities of a lack of detail and and the tonal distribution (IR will never give the detail found in light photography).
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  21. #21
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    619
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Hand held using an unconverted camera and IR filter:



    I actually think long exposures not only result in sharp images, but the object motion is great to work with.





    But motion does not have to be that noticable.





    Sharpness is simply not a problem with using a stock camera and filter. Perhaps you don't like motion blur in objects, but that is a problem in regular landscape photography when maximizing DoF and minimizing ISO. Sure, if you want to maximize technical quality, a converted camera is best, but much can be done without a converted camera (see above).

    And one of the appeals of IR photography is not its sharpness, but its aesthetic qualities of a lack of detail and and the tonal distribution (IR will never give the detail found in light photography).

    These are really nice shots, and being in South Florida I certainly appreciate them. Motion blur with me is hit or miss, generally I try to avoid it unless i want to show movement. In the case of other people - certainly the shots you posted, I find it very artistic and interesting, maybe I don't have that confidence. I have shot on an unconverted camera, and certainly is easier if the filter starts in the 600nm range. I am just saying that a converted camera, does not have to be limited to IR. I think people tend to overlook this.
    Philip
    www.pg-pg.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,808
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by alajuela View Post
    These are really nice shots, and being in South Florida I certainly appreciate them. Motion blur with me is hit or miss, generally I try to avoid it unless i want to show movement. In the case of other people - certainly the shots you posted, I find it very artistic and interesting, maybe I don't have that confidence. I have shot on an unconverted camera, and certainly is easier if the filter starts in the 600nm range. I am just saying that a converted camera, does not have to be limited to IR. I think people tend to overlook this.
    I totally agree a specialized camera will give better results. And certainly a full spectrum conversion camera is a really good compromise. Still, you need to get filters for all your lenses to do white light photography. I am curious, have you found that lens IR cut filters give the same response as the original camera filter? Or do you have to work a bit more to get good color--I have heard different things and maybe that is a camera specific thing.

    I guess I am looking at the OP who is thinking of getting his feet wet with IR. I think camera conversion can be a big leap for some. Having done IR, I also know it is not where most of my photography is. I enjoy it from time to time, but it isn't a type of photography where I would dedicate significant resources. I think if I did really click with IR, I would convert a camera (although a member converted a Sigma camera with a Foveon sensor and is getting some remarkable results that are tempting). But I find a simple filter lets me scratch the itch when I get it.

    For me, getting a filter is such an easy first step to see if you like it. And to be honest, when you start out, it is such an alien tonal range it takes a while to come to terms with it--it is nothing like processing white light black and white images. And the lighting conditions for successful IR photography is far more limited, at least in my experience.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    619
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    I totally agree a specialized camera will give better results. And certainly a full spectrum conversion camera is a really good compromise. Still, you need to get filters for all your lenses to do white light photography. I am curious, have you found that lens IR cut filters give the same response as the original camera filter? Or do you have to work a bit more to get good color--I have heard different things and maybe that is a camera specific thing.

    I guess I am looking at the OP who is thinking of getting his feet wet with IR. I think camera conversion can be a big leap for some. Having done IR, I also know it is not where most of my photography is. I enjoy it from time to time, but it isn't a type of photography where I would dedicate significant resources. I think if I did really click with IR, I would convert a camera (although a member converted a Sigma camera with a Foveon sensor and is getting some remarkable results that are tempting). But I find a simple filter lets me scratch the itch when I get it.

    For me, getting a filter is such an easy first step to see if you like it. And to be honest, when you start out, it is such an alien tonal range it takes a while to come to terms with it--it is nothing like processing white light black and white images. And the lighting conditions for successful IR photography is far more limited, at least in my experience.
    Hi

    You are being very practical, Even getting a Point and Shoot IR with maybe a one inch sensor and gives raw files and throwing in the bag could be fun, and educational.

    I agree, IR is nice, but to just do IR after a while becomes tiresome, I like it, and thinks it add some spice to images occasionally, and fun to do and experiment with. To just get started certainly just getting a filter maybe a 720nm or something from the 600s is easy to get your feet wet and certainly can get great results like the ones you posted.

    As far as the hot filter goes, the answer is yes - I did a couple of test a few years ago





    I was surprised about the B+W 486 since it is so popular, the MaxMax and Kolari appear to have a sharper cut. The B+W is easy to correct in raw., but still surprised.

    I should mention, these were taken with a full spectrum converted Fuji x-pro 1 - also a similar experience with a full spectrum Phase P45+

    Thanks

    Phil
    Last edited by alajuela; 1 Week Ago at 17:35.
    Philip
    www.pg-pg.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,808
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: IR filters on modern mirrorless cameras?

    Phil, thanks for that.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •