[HomeMadeSin]

Ok, I also had a K-01 modified for infrared (full spectrum) and loved it. I sold it here on PF because Pentax didn't see fit to make use of the external astrotracer and I wanted to try astrophotography. I really miss that camera now.

I did try a Nikon D7100, also converted to full spectrum by the same company (Kolari) but hated it. The white balance could not be set properly in-camera and the menu system drove me nuts.

Other than its compactness, and possible good deals I would not limit my choice to the K-01. Any of the same sensor with live view would be good for conversion and with external hot mirror filter you could use it like a normal camera.

Z

[Landscape_with_K1]

What about getting one of the older models, K-x I think being among the first ones with live view, and making it a DIY project? There are instructions online for making the mod.

[angerdan]

Why using an old model, when you could get a converted K-1 II or K-01 ?
Pentax DSLR Infrared and Full Spectrum Conversion Service - Kolari Vision
Pentax Mirrorless Infrared Conversion - Infrared Conversions, IR Modifications & Photography Tutorials | Life Pixel IR

[dick897]

I also went down the k01 route.
And like others I used Isaac Szabo.
Thoroughly professional job.
I too went full spectrum, if you have concerns about filters and the 15-30mm, you could get it converted to 680nm or 720nm that way with the 15-30mm you would be shooting at that wavelength and if you were shooting with a different lens you could add a higher wavelength filter to it if you wanted.
I loved my IR k01, sorry I sold it, but needs must.
As already said, no focusing issues with a k01 as it's mirrorless.

[Cerebum]

Why using an old model, when you could get a converted K-1 II or K-01 ?
Pentax DSLR Infrared and Full Spectrum Conversion Service - Kolari Vision
Pentax Mirrorless Infrared Conversion - Infrared Conversions, IR Modifications & Photography Tutorials | Life Pixel IR

The first answer that springs to mind is cost. How much IR photography are you planning to do? If the answer is not much you may be able to get good results with an unmodified earlier model and a filter or two, which would save you a mint. I haven’t really read up on how good they are but this article seems to think it works
Infrared Photography With A Pentax Digital SLR Part 1

[lmd91343]

For a while now, I've thought about doing infrared photography. It does seem that the best way to do it is to get the camera sensor modified directly, rather than use IR lens filters. However, after reading the subject somewhat, I'm debating what the best route to go is.

IR photography is fun! I started with filters on rangefinders with darkroom work (my hair is gray) and now I’ve used a converted K10D for years. My 20-40 limited lives on my K10D. I have posted about 40 IR pictures on this forum.

If all you have done is think about trying IR, it is a bit premature to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars buying a camera and then converting it. Instead try it with a filter first on your current camera and lens. It takes a little more exposure time and the use of a tripod, but it is cheaper. Rather than spending 20 seconds to compose, setup, and expose a shot, you will spend two minutes. This works my non-converted K20, K5, and K3. There are several threads here on how to do that. Then after you’ve confirmed your interest, buy and convert a camera. Save your bank account from potentially unneeded injury.

[Bob 256]

What's been said is true. You can shoot IR using just an IR filter on the lens of many DSLR cameras. Some work better than others depending on their UV/IR reject filters (some don't have one).

If you're wanting to shoot something with motion without blurring, you'll have to go the converted camera route. Another advantage conversion allows is you can stop down your lens for better depth of field and get better performance out of a given lens. Shooting through the camera's reject filter on a K-01 or K-1 results in quite a few f-stops of sensitivity loss so just be ready to use a tripod and longer exposures if you do that, but it can be a great way to see if you like IR photography without a conversion job (though a full spectrum converted camera can still be used for regular photography with a reject filter on the lens).

Just don't jump and sink a lot of money into IR photography until you get a sample taste and decide you like it and want to do a lot more of it. That said, the DSLR is a great tool for this type of photography compared to IR film of yesteryear.

[kypfer]

Simply because I had the filters to hand from my days with "real" film, I did a couple of comparison tests between my *ist DS and my K-5, both unmodified, using the same lens/filter combination on each body. The K-5 was a little disappointing ... it simply doesn't respond with an IR filter fitted to the lens. even the live-view shows nothing, though it will work with a very dark red filter.


However ... the *ist DS is surprisingly capable, even with a "dark" IR filter it gives a good response. Of course, you can't see a thing through the viewfinder and there's no live-view ... so I use a clip-on multi-frame viewfinder from my old Russian rangefinder camera fitted in the hot-shoe.


Edit: Don't forget the viewfinder cover on the camera when using an external viewfinder ... it makes a big difference!


With appropriate choice of framing to compensate for the crop sensor we're in business


This set-up can also work well when using a pinhole !

There's parallax compensation to be considered for close-up work, of course, but with a 35mm lens on the *ist and a 50mm frame selected in the viewfinder, we're good to go for most scenery/landscape type work


There's a rather tired-looking *ist D in a second-hand shop in town that's a candidate for conversion, but it'd mean a further investment in CF cards, so I'm thinking about it.


Just my tuppence worth ... hope it helps.