Which camera to 'blind' (convert to IR)

S

scottsa

Member
Local time
8:32 AM
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
30
I have the option to convert one of my recently acquired M4/3 bodies to IR sensitivity. To choose from, I have an E-PL1, GF1 and GF2. I also have an E-PL2 but have no intention of modifying it.

I'm wondering what input any of you may have regarding the merits of each one, or more specifically, the one and why.

I actually just picked up the GF1 with the express idea of converting it. The camera is used but not abused, while the others are effectively new with only a handful of images through them.

However in talking with the seller, it sounded like the GF1 was nicer to shoot with for some things, a bit more manual control, etc.

I had considered the E-PL1 because of the legacy lens stabilization. I like many things about the Panasonics, but I also like the versatility of the Olympus.

Thoughts, insights and suggestions are greatly appreciated, thanks in advance for any and all assistance.
 
I have been considering converting my EP1 to IR as well just for experimentation. I have used a IR filter on the lens but its such a pain in the neck sometimes, especially focusing. I would say the way to go is to convert a camera that has sensor based stabilization just so you could have it for when you need it.
 
Avotius said:
I have been considering converting my EP1 to IR as well just for experimentation. I have used a IR filter on the lens but its such a pain in the neck sometimes, especially focusing. I would say the way to go is to convert a camera that has sensor based stabilization just so you could have it for when you need it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comment. Hopefully I can help you a little and I agree the sensor stabilization is attractive for legacy lenses.

I have never shot IR digitally with an unmodified camera. I figured it was sub-optimal (understatement).

The low-pass filter covering the sensor does an effective job of blocking a lot of the IR light. This is to make it easier to hold detail, maintain more natural colour balance and more.

Adding a high-pass IR filter in front of the lens begins approx. where the low-pass ends and effectively blocks a majority of all wavelengths of light from passing. This makes for long exposures and therefore more noise, etc., in the image.

I have converted several consumer cameras to IR, and they have been a lot of fun to work with (mostly Panasonic, they are nicer to work with than the Canon and Olympus P&S... except the Powershot G series, they are decent to work on too.

Since P&S cameras work best in well illuminated circumstances, they have been a good choice I think, and it gives some of them a "second life".

IR has its typical effects in sunlight and well illuminated settings, so higher shutter speeds are easier, as are smaller apertures.

I think the Panasonic using legacy lenses for IR will be less problematic for shake than more varied conditions for regularly 'sighted' cameras (non-IR subjects).

The E-P1 you have, and the E-PL1 would work equally as well. I was hoping to hear feedback from experienced users that the GF1 had certain advantages over the GF2 for conversion.

I am now leaning towards converting the GF2. The GF1 has some modes and features that were removed from the GF2 it seems. Unfortunately, the GF1 battery is very different from the GF2 so using them as a pair for travel means dragging along a second charger and spare battery.

"cosomonaut"

Thank you for the link. There are other companies such as LifePixel that also do the conversion and I know they have lowered their price to do the work, but not exactly when or by how much. They are at least on par, if not less, for the work.

I will be doing the conversions to the cameras I have here. While I don't have a fancy clean-room, I have ways of keeping the dust down and out of the way.

I'm not about to intentionally break one of the cameras, but I have seen E-PL1's sell for less than half of the ePray conversion price of $249, the GF1 was a few dollars more than half that price. I could break one, convert another, keep spare parts and convert another and break near even.
 
Last edited:
Given that the sensors in the three cameras are the same, the in- body stabilization of the Oly might be the deciding factor. The other issue is the filter to use - 830nm gives an almost pure BW, which may be an advantage starting from a raw file.

My 'Kalahari skies' set on Flickr has a number of shots with an 830nm converted Lumix G2.

Kirk
 
KEH said:
Given that the sensors in the three cameras are the same, the in- body stabilization of the Oly might be the deciding factor. The other issue is the filter to use - 830nm gives an almost pure BW, which may be an advantage starting from a raw file.

My 'Kalahari skies' set on Flickr has a number of shots with an 830nm converted Lumix G2.

Kirk
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply, sorry for my tardiness.

It is a combination of factors I've been considering, now its just a lack of time to implement.

With IR, it is often most dramatic in very well illuminated circumstances, so stabilization is a lesser issue but not eliminated.

I was recently horseback riding with a point-and-shoot that I modified for IR and, well, lost a few frames due to the moving platform. "Woah" is only a relative concept under some circumstances.

Also, there can be lots of interesting subjects at sunset/sunrise so it isn't a guarantee that shutter speeds will always be high enough. That is primarily why the final decision was for the Oly., and that I found one used for an attractive price.

As it stands now, I have decided to convert an E-PL1 and pair that with an E-PL2 for my travel cameras. Interchangeable battery and charger (minor differences) and the ability to use my legacy glass, via an adapter, when desired.

Thank you for your informed response,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom