Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-01-2021, 06:07 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,224
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Couple more earlier today.

Full spectrum (no filter in front) - Front yard of a house

UV+IR (Schott BG3) - Lake with people

And Deep IR (Schott RG1000) - Little creek
Impressive results. It's making me think about modding a Q. So do you recommend going full spectrum for the most options?

Thanks,
barondla

05-01-2021, 07:10 PM - 2 Likes   #17
Veteran Member
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 368
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Impressive results. It's making me think about modding a Q. So do you recommend going full spectrum for the most options?

Thanks,
barondla
It's probably the easiest option, because otherwise you'd have to replace the hot mirror piece of glass with some other kind of glass.

The problem with going full spectrum though is you have to spend money for the filters in front of the lens, and some of the specialty filters such as UV/IR dual-bandpass or UV pass only (as opposed to the typical range of IR longpass filters) can cost $80 to $200 each depending (bout 75 to 120 average for the good filters in a 52mm thread size for me). The kind like B+W 092 (695nm+) or the Hoya R25 (or similarly B_W 091, that sits between a Hoya R25 Medium Red and R29 Deep Red) for that "Goldie" look on a full spectrum, or Hoya R72 etc are relatively inexpensive, but most other kinds not so much.

Also the nice thing about keeping it full spectrum is that under artificial light conditions (indoors, or at night on the street etc), most of the results appear relatively "normal" but with just better sensitivity without cranking up the ISO as much. In many cases I've noticed that there is very little UV or IR leaching from the lighting source to overpower the visual light source. But if say a store has a "night mode" style security camera, you'll definitely see the IR beam emitting from it like a floodlight.

Downside though when not using a filter at all, you'll notice a slight fuzzieness during daytime (where both UV, visible, and IR light is present heavily), as UV and IR are not quite focused on the same plane as visible light (hence the old red IR Index mark that you move your focus ring to after focusing visually, when using infrared film), so usually when you focus there's a bit of a halo-ing effect, hence why it's good to get one of those UV/IR cut filters to throw back on the lens if you need to have a 'normal' session with the camera.

I noticed that because it does that, autofocusing without any filters especially when not at close range can miss a bit, but when I'm using either the UV+IR , or IR filters in front, focusing is fine even at a distance.

Here's a couple more examples earlier tonight.

One about 7P about an hour and a half before sunset (shot thru car winshield), with the yellow fiolage, it's the UV+IR Schott BG3 filter in front. But with no filter at all in front (and white balance set to CTE) it has the darker bushes/trees (green normally).

Then there's one of the bridge about 10 minutes after sunset, with thunderclouds behind me while shooting, so a lot of the light of the sun off to my rear right was getting quickly dimmed by the incoming storm clouds. Still some infrared reflectivity off foliage but not as much UV going on it seems like. There's still a bit of softness in details when not narrowed down to one of the three visibility areas (ie: UV, IR, or Visible).

Filters I own in 52mm are Schott BG3 1.5mm (UV+IR Dual Bandpass), B+W 091 (580-ish?+) B+W 092 (695nm+), Schott RG850 2mm, Schott RG1000 2mm, Schott RG1000 2.5mm, I have an old Hoya R25 sitting around somewhere.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
05-01-2021, 07:36 PM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
i_trax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,667
So cool , I really like Q's.
I just ordered IR-72 filter URTH Plus+ , or whatever it is called.
I was told that it should work really well with CCD bodies , I have K10D.
I can also try to place that filter on a K mount lens and mount the lens on the "Q" via my Pentax Q to PKA adapter , that should give me some kind of IR rig , correct?
05-02-2021, 05:41 AM   #19
Veteran Member
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 368
QuoteOriginally posted by i_trax Quote
So cool , I really like Q's.
I just ordered IR-72 filter URTH Plus+ , or whatever it is called.
I was told that it should work really well with CCD bodies , I have K10D.
I can also try to place that filter on a K mount lens and mount the lens on the "Q" via my Pentax Q to PKA adapter , that should give me some kind of IR rig , correct?
The Urth seems more like marketing than anything (ie: pitching low carbon footprint to make, and a lot of coatings to make it resistant to cleaning). Also the Q10 is a CMOS sensor, not CCD.

It should still work, but so would a lot of other options.

Regarding the PKA adapter if you have the official Pentax one with the built in shutter, then you won't have as much limitations over a native lens. But if you just mean an adapter without any kind of electronic contact or built in leaf shutter, then there will be some limitations particularly in long exposure setting, and that it'll be purely electronic shutter (the native lens with electronic contacts have their own shutters and ND filters built in).

PS: Keep in mind it's best to shoot in raw mode (DNG) with this stuff, rather than rely on the jpeg to give you enough details to play with especially since you may have to pull colors here or there to get the best result.


Last edited by kb244; 05-02-2021 at 06:03 AM.
05-02-2021, 10:00 AM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
i_trax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,667
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
The Urth seems more like marketing than anything (ie: pitching low carbon footprint to make, and a lot of coatings to make it resistant to cleaning). Also the Q10 is a CMOS sensor, not CCD.

It should still work, but so would a lot of other options.

Regarding the PKA adapter if you have the official Pentax one with the built in shutter, then you won't have as much limitations over a native lens. But if you just mean an adapter without any kind of electronic contact or built in leaf shutter, then there will be some limitations particularly in long exposure setting, and that it'll be purely electronic shutter (the native lens with electronic contacts have their own shutters and ND filters built in).

PS: Keep in mind it's best to shoot in raw mode (DNG) with this stuff, rather than rely on the jpeg to give you enough details to play with especially since you may have to pull colors here or there to get the best result.
thank you,
as I stated K10D has CCD , NOT the Q.
Q-PKA adapter is the dinky-di Pentax product with all goods included and with rather high price-tag,
I never did RAW but you can learn everything , will give it a go
05-02-2021, 10:13 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,224
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
It's probably the easiest option, because otherwise you'd have to replace the hot mirror piece of glass with some other kind of glass.

The problem with going full spectrum though is you have to spend money for the filters in front of the lens, and some of the specialty filters such as UV/IR dual-bandpass or UV pass only (as opposed to the typical range of IR longpass filters) can cost $80 to $200 each depending (bout 75 to 120 average for the good filters in a 52mm thread size for me). The kind like B+W 092 (695nm+) or the Hoya R25 (or similarly B_W 091, that sits between a Hoya R25 Medium Red and R29 Deep Red) for that "Goldie" look on a full spectrum, or Hoya R72 etc are relatively inexpensive, but most other kinds not so much.

Also the nice thing about keeping it full spectrum is that under artificial light conditions (indoors, or at night on the street etc), most of the results appear relatively "normal" but with just better sensitivity without cranking up the ISO as much. In many cases I've noticed that there is very little UV or IR leaching from the lighting source to overpower the visual light source. But if say a store has a "night mode" style security camera, you'll definitely see the IR beam emitting from it like a floodlight.

Downside though when not using a filter at all, you'll notice a slight fuzzieness during daytime (where both UV, visible, and IR light is present heavily), as UV and IR are not quite focused on the same plane as visible light (hence the old red IR Index mark that you move your focus ring to after focusing visually, when using infrared film), so usually when you focus there's a bit of a halo-ing effect, hence why it's good to get one of those UV/IR cut filters to throw back on the lens if you need to have a 'normal' session with the camera.

I noticed that because it does that, autofocusing without any filters especially when not at close range can miss a bit, but when I'm using either the UV+IR , or IR filters in front, focusing is fine even at a distance.

Here's a couple more examples earlier tonight.

One about 7P about an hour and a half before sunset (shot thru car winshield), with the yellow fiolage, it's the UV+IR Schott BG3 filter in front. But with no filter at all in front (and white balance set to CTE) it has the darker bushes/trees (green normally).

Then there's one of the bridge about 10 minutes after sunset, with thunderclouds behind me while shooting, so a lot of the light of the sun off to my rear right was getting quickly dimmed by the incoming storm clouds. Still some infrared reflectivity off foliage but not as much UV going on it seems like. There's still a bit of softness in details when not narrowed down to one of the three visibility areas (ie: UV, IR, or Visible).

Filters I own in 52mm are Schott BG3 1.5mm (UV+IR Dual Bandpass), B+W 091 (580-ish?+) B+W 092 (695nm+), Schott RG850 2mm, Schott RG1000 2mm, Schott RG1000 2.5mm, I have an old Hoya R25 sitting around somewhere.
Lots to absorb. Thanks for the info. This will take some studying.
Thanks,
barondla
3 Days Ago - 1 Like   #22
Veteran Member
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 368
Did some long exposure testing (I didn't exactly prioritize perfect focus) to see how sensitive it was to the night sky in an apartment parking lot that has a bit of light pollution from the sides etc.

Name:  IMGP6372.jpg
Views: 20
Size:  360.0 KB

There was a consistent flare that was always there, I thought maybe it was the dust removal ribbon cable that I left intact, so snipped that and tucked it, still persisted.

Then I figured, based on my experience with my IR modified Olympus, it was probably the native lens as they're usually designed to filter UV or have anti-glare coating on the back sometimes. So I put my old Pentax-M 50/1.4 on it with a cheap mechanical 'dumb' adapter. Which as you know only allows for 2" max, so I also cranked the ISO up to 1600 to see if I could get the flare. Turns out it's the native Standard Prime 01 lens, the flare doesn't happen with my 1951 Canon 35/2.8 LTM or Pentax-M 50/1.4 lens. More than like I'll need that expensive PK to Q adapter to utilize anything past 2 seconds (and to have a leaf shutter).

Name:  IMGP6398.jpg
Views: 18
Size:  66.6 KB

Edit: The 06 Telephoto Zoom lens does not exhibit the flare.

Edit #2 : The 02 Standard does not exhibit it either, however it seems like inifnity focus is lost severely if you go any wider than 10mm (it's already pretty lost on all the native lens).

Last edited by kb244; 3 Days Ago at 12:35 AM.
2 Days Ago   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,224
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Did some long exposure testing (I didn't exactly prioritize perfect focus) to see how sensitive it was to the night sky in an apartment parking lot that has a bit of light pollution from the sides etc.

Attachment 534102

There was a consistent flare that was always there, I thought maybe it was the dust removal ribbon cable that I left intact, so snipped that and tucked it, still persisted.

Then I figured, based on my experience with my IR modified Olympus, it was probably the native lens as they're usually designed to filter UV or have anti-glare coating on the back sometimes. So I put my old Pentax-M 50/1.4 on it with a cheap mechanical 'dumb' adapter. Which as you know only allows for 2" max, so I also cranked the ISO up to 1600 to see if I could get the flare. Turns out it's the native Standard Prime 01 lens, the flare doesn't happen with my 1951 Canon 35/2.8 LTM or Pentax-M 50/1.4 lens. More than like I'll need that expensive PK to Q adapter to utilize anything past 2 seconds (and to have a leaf shutter).

Attachment 534103

Edit: The 06 Telephoto Zoom lens does not exhibit the flare.

Edit #2 : The 02 Standard does not exhibit it either, however it seems like inifnity focus is lost severely if you go any wider than 10mm (it's already pretty lost on all the native lens).
Weird about the 01 and flare. So your theory is uv is causing the problem?
Thanks,
barondla

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!
camera, conversion for pentax, filter, glass, ir, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Samsung NX mini, a Top Infra-Red ILC for $125 geo444 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 11 04-16-2020 12:58 AM
Pentax K-3 in-camera infra-red effect? Theov39 Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 03-13-2018 02:45 AM
Travel K5 infra red filter mode shot. charliezap Post Your Photos! 11 10-25-2012 06:22 AM
Infra-red conversion excanonfd Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 04-15-2012 05:29 PM
Landscape Trying out the K5 infra red filter. charliezap Post Your Photos! 12 08-14-2011 05:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:01 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