Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-27-2022, 01:19 PM   #16
Reboot before calling IT
Loyal Site Supporter
madison_wi_gal's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Madison WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 575
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
Then the fiddly stuff of groping and pissing about so close to the mirror and sensor
Well in my case, no mirror. And Isaac says these are fine and a better choice than continually swapping filters or using step-ups for my 15 and 21 (49) to get all the way up to the larger ring size.

Rob Shea has a video about these and he does warn about them being fussy and the whole dust thing, but I am a lab person and have good hands so I'm not personally worried.



07-27-2022, 06:58 PM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,942
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote

..................The only reason I can think of is the odd situation you would like to switch (downward) to a different wavelength cutoff and/or usage for some specialized application such as astro. Even with a fixed IR sensor glass you can always use a lens filter to go beyond the sensor wavelength. So if you converted your camera to 590Nm, you can always use lens filters to do 630Nm, 720Nm or more.

I can imagine some nooks and crannies of photography applications these clip-in filters might fill but for anyone just wanting to do IR shooting, .................
What you say about using longer wavelength cutoff filters with a 590nm converted camera is true. The reason for doing the full spectrum conversion is that it allows one to still use the camera for regular use with a UV/IR reject filter on the lens and it also allows UV photography if one so desires. Also, if just IR illumination is used (e.g. surveillance photography) there is a slight gain in the camera sensitivity because the 590nm filter in the camera is eliminated (no filter over the lens is needed since all the illumination is in the IR range).

The context of the "clip-in filters" was for lenses that couldn't accommodate over the lens (front) filters which is the case with some ultra-wides and others. Then, the only option is a behind the lens filter (or in some cases, a very large front filter in a mount), and I agree that "clip-in" filters aren't the best option. Gel filters are best and they are so thin, they don't have significant issues with reflection or optical path lengthening, and degrade the image very little. When I use these, it's with a specific lens that is already prepped with the filter, so it takes no longer to install that lens on the camera than any other.
07-27-2022, 07:14 PM   #18
Reboot before calling IT
Loyal Site Supporter
madison_wi_gal's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Madison WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 575
Yes, I also considered gel filters, but I'll try this STC clip in 590 and see how it goes. The advantage is I can use with several lenses. I can use the 10-17 for IR.
07-27-2022, 10:56 PM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,184
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob 256 Quote
What you say about using longer wavelength cutoff filters with a 590nm converted camera is true. The reason for doing the full spectrum conversion is that it allows one to still use the camera for regular use with a UV/IR reject filter on the lens and it also allows UV photography if one so desires. Also, if just IR illumination is used (e.g. surveillance photography) there is a slight gain in the camera sensitivity because the 590nm filter in the camera is eliminated (no filter over the lens is needed since all the illumination is in the IR range).
Yes, both of those options are very niche IMHO which is why I said they are "for some specialized application" but technically you are absolutely spot-on.

QuoteQuote:
The context of the "clip-in filters" was for lenses that couldn't accommodate over the lens (front) filters which is the case with some ultra-wides and others. Then, the only option is a behind the lens filter (or in some cases, a very large front filter in a mount),
And I think that is not necessarily true. Once you have decided on a wavelength, a sensor conversion to that particular wavelength allows you to use all of your lenses without front filter at that specific wavelength and some lenses which do take filters at any given (longer) wavelength as well through the use of screw-in filters. As I have no noticed, some UWAs don't do all that well in infrared to begin with. I had high hopes for my Sigma 8-16 (which indeed does not take filters) but it failed the cut miserably. The 8mm fisheye does a little better (and also does not take a filter) but the Tamron 10-24 and the DA16-85 really perform OK under infrared light and both take reasonably-sized filters (77mm and 72mm respectively so a step-down ring is also quite possible).

QuoteQuote:
...and I agree that "clip-in" filters aren't the best option. Gel filters are best and they are so thin, they don't have significant issues with reflection or optical path lengthening, and degrade the image very little. When I use these, it's with a specific lens that is already prepped with the filter, so it takes no longer to install that lens on the camera than any other.
That is an interesting use case indeed, never had a chance to use gel filters myself. If I read between your lines, I should probably stay away from them, fumbly-fingered as I am

Price comparison:
I see a complete set of STC 590,720, 850 and IR/UV-cut clip-ins costs $370 - even if I ignore shipping costs, import would add on 21% VAT and clearance handling charges. Total would end up somewhere around the 470. I would probably only do that if I'd have converted my main body (KP) to infrared instead of having bought a converted K-5. For that amount, I can buy an additional preconverted K-5 with a different IR sensor filter than the one I already have or buy about 5 large diameter IR filters.

So, marketing aside, these clip-ins seem to have a very specific and narrow use case scenario with a questionable CBA. It's great to have that option but it seems absolute overkill for most. But I may be totally wrong of course, no idea how others tend to evaluate their use case.

07-28-2022, 05:41 AM   #20
Reboot before calling IT
Loyal Site Supporter
madison_wi_gal's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Madison WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 575
Well, I am happy to test all this out. My K-01 which *was* 590 but I never tested with the 10-17 to see if it was even suitable is about to be reconverted to FS. I ordered the STC 590 clip-in and can compare to the previous 590 "native" with same lenses as before (more truck garden pictures!) and see if reconverting to FS was all a stupid idea. Unlike many on this forum, this is a true hobby and if I wind up having shot myself in the foot then so be it.

For Photoshop users, Kolari has actions that convert a 590 image to 665 and 720 "looking", so far they seem accurate, so I might be able to get away with only buying an 850 lens filter.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af-s, filter, hotspots, k-5, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, sharpness, slr lens, tamron, tape, test of tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IR "Good" performers vs "Bad" - why bother using lenses unsuitable for IR? madison_wi_gal Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 07-27-2022 04:40 PM
Do Pentax 10-17mm, Sigma 10-20, and Tamron 10-24 have a physical aperture control? torontoem4o Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 11-29-2013 10:04 AM
Pentax 12-24 f4 vs. Tamron 10-24 f3.5-4.5 rbpentaxguy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 08-25-2011 12:53 PM
Pentax DA 12-24 f4 or Tamron 10-24 f3.5/4.5..... UpNorth Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 03-15-2010 01:05 AM
Pentax 12-24/Sigma 10-20/Tamron 10-24 Jewelltrail Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 04-30-2009 12:33 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:41 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top