lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

"Any range" is of course subject to the availability of the necessary filter(s).

Bipod

I've seen a thermal imager for sale, "Seek", that will allow cell phone cameras (iPhone or Android) to take
full-blown thermal images: $238.
https://www.amazon.com/Seek-Thermal-XR-Imager-iOS-Apple/dp/B00SSZ5KPY/ref=sr_1_1?s=wireless

Yet one can't buy a Nikon, Canon or Sony camera that will take near-IR images. There is no option to
omit the built-in filter on the digital sensor. Instead, one has to take their brand-new camera to third-party
for an expensive conversion.

But their film cameas *would* take IR photos--with the right film and filter. It's another thing we lost when we
went from film to digital sensors (with built-in filters). Newer is always better--even when it is less capable.

They are happy to take your $3000 for a high-end digital body, but they don't want to provide even a single
option--like you would get on an automobile, a musical instrument or even suit of clothes.

And they wonder why the camera market is shrinking. If it keeps on shrinking, there is going to be a big
shakedown in the camera industry: mergers, spin-offs, exits or brankruptcies. Most likely at least one maker
will exit the camera business (as Konica Minolta and others already did).

But then, when one buys consumer products one can't expect anything out of the ordinary. Joe Consumer
doesn't take IR photos. Neither does Uncle Bob. So why not block everything except vacation snapshots
right at the sensor! Great idea. But consumer products are suppose to be *inexpensive*. And gear from
Nikon, Canon, Gucci, and Chanel is very expensive. :-)

Kodak was the ultimate consumer company -- but it made HIE film (used by Minor White, among many others)
until 2007. But that was before the mass market became the only thing that matters. Kodak invested in
R&D and made numerous innovations (including HC-110 developer which Ansel Adams used in his later
work, and XTOL). It's technical publications were excellent.

Digital technology is inherently way better for IR than film, but Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus etc. neutralized
that advantage. The market was too small to matter (it's all about markets, not photography). And they may not
have been able to buy an image sensor that didn't contain an IR blocking filter.

Fujifilm and Sony are the only camera companies making their own image sensors (though others may have
sensors made to their specs---if they are willing to pay much more than for an off-the-shelf part). Most cameras
are designed around sensors that anyone can buy from an electronics parts house. The companies making sensors
are offshore semiconductor companies -- with no particular connection to photography. They earch make hundreds
of semiconductor products.

It's as if GM or Ford bought it's engines from Samsung. Wanna buy a car with a Samsung engine? Or if
they only came in black. Or you couldn't get one with a factory-installed sunroof.

$3000 is a lot of money for an off-the-rack, disposable consumer product that doesn't do what you want -- even if
the brand name is very upscale.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Well, Bipod, thank you for alerting us as to the latest (and greatest?) SEEK Thermal Imaging camera, but I researched this a few years ago and hands down decided that the FLIR ONE dual thermal & visible light camera for both iOS & Android was the winner.

I see from your link that SEEK has improved the pixel resolution of their camera, as did FLIR with their FLIR ONE Pro model, which retails for ~$400. (The updated version of my model retails for ~$200.) However, from what little I can tell on that webpage, this SEEK model yet again does not have an accompanying visible light camera with built-in image fusion. To me, that makes SEEK a big minus.

Bipod

SeeK was the first one that popped up on Google. :-) I don't even own a smart phone--don't want one.

The point is, there are two ways to sell products: the consumer way and the commercial/industrial/professional way.

If I spend $3000 right now on an oscilloscope instead of on a camera body, I will get an instrument that is intended to last
essentially forever. It will be supported by the manufacturer probably for decades. Because the industrial market demands it.

My oldest scope is a Tektronix 485 -- top-of-the-line in 1972. Probes for it are still available. I'll probably never part
with it. And I have an logic analyzer that is so old that it's was made by HP (not Agilent) and boots from a floppy
disk. Works great.

Light aircraft are made to keep flying essentially forever. My father bought a Cessna 172 in 1969 and sold it in 2010
(for more than he paid for it). It's still flying around. Aircraft are designed to be maintainable. There is no secret
proprietary computer in a aircraft engine. Oil samples are sent out for analysis -- just as they are on fleet vehicles
(e.g., large commerial deisel truck tractors). You don't take any chances with a $250,000 engine.

Here's a photography example: Kodak continued to publish the formula for its D-96 film developer, used in the
motion picture industry. No "secret formulas" are allowed when there are millions of dollars on the line.
Some large motion picture processing labs would send samples of developers out for chemical analysis, just to
make sure nothing had changed. They couldn't afford mistakes. But from the 1950s on, the formulas for Kodak's
other developers -- including D-76 -- were considered "trade secrets". The formulas you see are baed on the
ones from the 1940s or patent applications.

(People who scoff at Kodak should remember that Kodak pioneered digital photography. At one time, all of
Canon's digital cameras were made by Kodak.)

Most consumers only know the consumer way: few if any options, planned obselesence, support soon discontinued,
no technical specs available. They don't realize that there is another, totally different way of doing business..

The camera market used to be segmented: Kodak dominated the consumer market, and the Nikon and Canon were
mainly in the pro market. The companies that played in both (e.g., Konica Minolta) did so with very different models.

Now the consumer market dominates the dollar-value camera market. Consumers buy far more Nikon D850s then
the few remaining professional photographers do. Cameras are now almost entirely a part of the consumer electronics
industry (witness Sony buying Minolta's digital camera line).

The only well-known camera manufacturers not trying to play the mass market game are Leica and Hassalblad.
For the rest of us, buying a camera is now like buying a smart phone or a video game box. Yuck.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Bipod,
I'm surprised you even bothered to look up the existence of SEEK and report it. I view your last two posts under this Topic concerning Infrared Photography to be essentially all about your recounting the History of Business in Photography. It could be an interesting subject for you to explore in your own blog or in a Topic that you may wish to Create & Post here.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING.

Bipod

Thanks for your feedback and suggestions, lev29.
IR photography is currently not supported by any camera manufacturer (to the best of my
knowledge). That's a shame: it's a wonderful medium. It used to be supported by Kodak (HIE film).
Too much history? Sorry.

At this moment, the camera market is shrinking and the cell phone market is growing.
That is the future of photography, unless we, photographers, do something about it.
German film director and still photographer Wim Wenders has spoken quite eloquently on this issue.

I think it is important to understand why things are happening, and try to influence events,
not just to passively react to them. This is known as "democracy" and "freedom of speech".
Of course, you are free to disagree, and to buy whatever products corporations chose to make.
You are also free not to read my posts.

With respect, I have a suggestion for you: wouldn't photography be a nicer hobby than censorship?

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Mr. Bipod,
Based on what you wrote below, I find your apology to be disingenuous. I, too, believe in freedom of speech and democracy, particularly being a Bostonian. I do acknowledge that you have the kernel of a reasonable idea to express. But in my opinion, your prior two posts were truly excessive in length with respect to your views on the history of the photography business, disproportionately so!
Bully for your principles. But you are not allowed to just HIJACK anyone's Topic with your minimally tangentially-related but ultimately IRRELEVANT posts. When I joined some 3 years ago, not one or two months ago, as you just did, you would have been ridiculed for what you are now doing here.
Please don't be so pretentious and mount a fake horse, I am not censoring you. You can take your (mostly) irrelevant drivel elsewhere on this site. Allow me now to declare that at this point, you MAY continue to post to any topic of mine so long as you keep it relevant. If you don't know what "relevant" is, you can count on me to be the judge and inform you, at which point I would expect you to be a gentleman, if nothing else, and desist.

So now I put the question to you: Are you capable of being a responsible and cooperative member ... or not?

Bipod

IR digital photography exists today only because of a fluke: it is possible to remove the IR-blocking filter from
an image sensor. At any time, the IR filter could become integral to the sensor -- which would be he end of IR
digital photography.

The ability of an be retroffited for IR photography is *not* a design goal of sensor manufactuers--no datasheet
I've seen mentions it. It's an accident of how sensors are being manufactured today. Photographers who care
about IR photography on digital cameras need to know this.

This is one small example of an historic change: the shift of even high-end camera makers from
niche market products to mass market (at one time dominated by Kodak--which paradoxically was
also devoted to high-end and niche market film, paper, darkroom chemicals -- and research).

It would be a grave mistake to think the current industry structure is stable or will continue. Microeconomics
predicts a shakedown: a shrinking market means fewer firms. Similarly, it would be a grave mistake to think
that we will always be able to take near-IR photographs --- that "someone" will support it.

Consumer electronis is a mass-market business. It is very different than the old camera business was.
Today camera manufacturers are forced to use off-the-shell components. What is possible in photography
-- what a camera is -- isn't just up to camera manufacturers: image sensor and IC manufacturers have veto power.
Companies like Samsung, Taiwan Semiconductor, SK Hynix, Micron, TI, and Toshiba determine what it is
possible for Nikon or Canon to build. They also can force Nikon or Canon to discontinue a model--simply
by discontinuing a part that has no second source of supply.

This has already happened to a number of camera models. Before ICs were used in cameras, it rarely
happened: a camera model continued to be made as long as it was profitable or until a replacement model
became available.

The game has changed, folks. Cameras are now embedded systems--with all that that entails.
A camera now contains at least two large, complex ICs: a microprocessor and an image sensor
(the latter is a highly specialized item). The up-front cost to go into the image sensor chip business --
to design a new one and set up a new foundry--exceeds $1 bn.

Only people with experience in the electronics industry--or who follow such things in the trade press--
know by how much it has changed, or what this brave new world of big-cap mass-market electronics
is like.
.

Bipod

Tisk, tisk.

Where ever did you get the idea, lev29, that you "own" this topic or this discussion?

We are discussing IR photography. I'd like to get back on that topic, and off this ad hominem stuff.

I've said what I had to say: posted a source for inexpensive IR filters and issued a warning about
relying on sensor conversions. Now I'm interested in hearing what others have to say about
IR photography (which I love).

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Bipod,
You were doing better! But then you can't help yourself but scold me. I am the Creator of this Topic. THAT does give me the privilege.
You are becoming a nuisance, or are such a child that this is your intended goal. I suggest you refrain from this behavior, now.
End of discussion.