gshybrid
Well-known
I recently purchased an M9. It replaces an M8 but I've been reluctant to let it go because of it's handheld IR capabilities. I tested the M9 today and I'm fairly satisfied with the results. No more hand holding, or auto exposure but finding a good shutter speed was easy enough. In bright afternoon sunlight I found I had quite a bit of latitude with 160 iso, aperture 4.5(wide open on my CV15) shutter 1.5 sec. I want to try a faster lens but even with a few stops I don't think I'll be able to hand hold it. Higher ISOs produces a lot of noise in the corners with the M9. For the first 2 shots I used the M9 and a monopod. The third shot was handheld last summer with my M8 and the same lens.
M8 handheld:
M8 handheld:
There are a number of options for IR these days. I bought a Olympus EP2 modified for Visible+IR. The modification was only ~$300.
Now- the M8 modified for IR would be fantastic.
Now- the M8 modified for IR would be fantastic.
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Why would you have to modify an M8 for IR? You can just take the IR filter off, right?
@gshybrid: Fantastic shots! Do those clouds and foreground come with the M9? If so I want one!
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
No mod needed with the M8. You just slap a visible light IR-pass filter on the front and you are good to go. I use a 35 Summaron LTM dedicated for this.
Ben
Ben
gshybrid
Well-known
I think Brian was talking about modifying an M9.
Rob-f... the clouds will cost you.
Rob-f... the clouds will cost you.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Thank god I'm back in Seattle!!
Nice samples and congratulations on your M9.
Nice samples and congratulations on your M9.
No- Modifying an M8 would increase it's IR sensitivity dramatically.
Silicon sensors have as much sensitivity to IR as they do in the visible band. The IR absorbing glass of the M8 cuts most, at least 10dB, of the IR. Get rid of that IR absorbing glass, replace it with clear glass- you get much more sensitivity in the IR.
Silicon sensors have as much sensitivity to IR as they do in the visible band. The IR absorbing glass of the M8 cuts most, at least 10dB, of the IR. Get rid of that IR absorbing glass, replace it with clear glass- you get much more sensitivity in the IR.
As an example: this is with my Visible+IR modified Coolpix. IR absorbing glass replaced with a glass plate.
This case is all-black.
The M8 has IR absorbing glass over the CCD. It just is not as strong as the M9.
This case is all-black.
The M8 has IR absorbing glass over the CCD. It just is not as strong as the M9.
Last edited:
gshybrid
Well-known
It would be interesting to see the results. I just assumed it was unfiltered since in aperture priority mode it produces perfectly exposed IR shots..
This means the Photodetector used to set the exposure is also Silicon, and probably has about the same IR cut as the CCD.
Some cameras, the original Nikon FM, Konica FS-1, and Pentax MX used Gallium-Arsenide photodetectors which are not sensitive in the Infrared. They do not require IR cut filters, but were expensive. Now- if CCD's could be made of material that is not sensitive in the IR, there would not be a need for IR absorbing glass or Hot Mirror filters.
Some cameras, the original Nikon FM, Konica FS-1, and Pentax MX used Gallium-Arsenide photodetectors which are not sensitive in the Infrared. They do not require IR cut filters, but were expensive. Now- if CCD's could be made of material that is not sensitive in the IR, there would not be a need for IR absorbing glass or Hot Mirror filters.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Just as a comparison, here are two shots with M9 and M8. Same lens: 35mm Summaron with a B&W 093 IR Pass filter on it. Exact comparisons of the level of sensitivity are tough because regardless of what you produce in camera, there will be extensive tweaking afterward to get the effect you seek. That said, the M8 shot is at 1/15 sec. and the M9 shot is at 8 sec, which should give you all a sense of the order of magnitude of sensitivity we are talking about. F:5.6 in both cases.
This probably goes without saying, but the M9 shot is the one on the left (same camera position, but larger chip). ISO: 160.
Ben Marks
P.S. The NEX 5 with this lens took over 30 sec. and produced a much less distinct image.
P.P.S. Aperture priority mode on the M8 produces a very useful file. On the M9, not so much. I had to bracket exposure pretty extensively to match the M8's IR performance.
Final Edit: I really like the OP's images. Interesting, well composed and a good use of the drama that IR can bring to an image. My images: Meh. Test purposes only.
This probably goes without saying, but the M9 shot is the one on the left (same camera position, but larger chip). ISO: 160.
Ben Marks
P.S. The NEX 5 with this lens took over 30 sec. and produced a much less distinct image.
P.P.S. Aperture priority mode on the M8 produces a very useful file. On the M9, not so much. I had to bracket exposure pretty extensively to match the M8's IR performance.
Final Edit: I really like the OP's images. Interesting, well composed and a good use of the drama that IR can bring to an image. My images: Meh. Test purposes only.
Attachments
Last edited: