Hi all

I started a while ago with infrared photography. I started with a K100D with Hoya R72 filter. The exposure rates were quite high and viewfinder completely useless as it is completely dark.

I contacted the guy on this forum selling converted cameras (see https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographers-marketplace/41734-ir-only-k...ter-built.html) and bought him a converted K100D Super with 720nm filter on the sensor.

The camera arrived a week ago, but the weather did not really allow taking a lot of photos, but I finally managed to get a few, just to check:

1
DA*300, 1/125, f/4.0, 200iso


2
FA*31, 1/25, f/4.5, 200iso


3
FA*31, 1/200, f/4.5, 200iso


4
FA*31, 1/15, f/10.0, 800iso


5
FA*31, 1/30, f/10.0, 800iso


6
FA*31, 1/25, f/11.0, 200iso


I hope being able to make more soon. But a converted camera does really make a huge change.

Comments and critiques are welcome

[Ash]

These IR shots have turned out really REALLY well.
Your PP work is also spot on.
Thanks for sharing.

[Ole]

Sorry Dominique, the photos are nice but they do not look infrared to me. #2, for example, looks like a regular color photo. The birds in the water should have had more or less the same color, based on their temperature. The building's roof and walls should have been much closer in color. Too much visible light is let through the filter IMHO.

[tcom]

Thank you for all your comments.

These look great. I bought a k100d super to convert, have converted. This and your list of lenses are the ones I am working my way toward. Got nice ones now...

SO: More! How's the VF workout? Just looks normal? And AF? Was that adjusted also?

The viewfinder is just normal, the IR filter is located on the CCD so it has no impact on the viewfinder.

As regarding AF, I did not calibrate AF so far, the AF works perfectly well with the FA*31 and DA*300. However, I found out yesterday that the AF is off on distant shots with the Sigma 10-20. I did not check with other lenses yet.

[tcom]

Sorry Dominique, the photos are nice but they do not look infrared to me. #2, for example, looks like a regular color photo. The birds in the water should have had more or less the same color, based on their temperature. The building's roof and walls should have been much closer in color. Too much visible light is let through the filter IMHO.

I do get pretty much the same results with this converted camera as with an unconverted K100D using a Hoya R72 filter. A 720nm filter does not fully cut the visible light (even though, you do not see anything in the VF).

Infrared photography with a 720nm filter has nothing to do with thermal photography. I does just record a part of the light not visible to human eyes.

The common process in infrared "colour" photography is to swap red and blue during post processing. This does give back some "normal" colours. Now, with lack of sun, like in #2, it is much more like monochrome photography. But the trees on the left of the building come out white instead of green.

[jani]

the statue and trees impress me the most

[Ole]

I do get pretty much the same results with this converted camera as with an unconverted K100D using a Hoya R72 filter. A 720nm filter does not fully cut the visible light (even though, you do not see anything in the VF).

Infrared photography with a 720nm filter has nothing to do with thermal photography. I does just record a part of the light not visible to human eyes.

The common process in infrared "colour" photography is to swap red and blue during post processing. This does give back some "normal" colours. Now, with lack of sun, like in #2, it is much more like monochrome photography. But the trees on the left of the building come out white instead of green.

Thanks for pointing this out!

[daacon]

Those are excellent - I loe the water statue shots I thave tired a few with a filter ) I think the converted camera is the way to go for sure. Well done.