Which is better for IR photography- DSLR or Mirrorless? Hi HH'ers, I'm considering getting a digital camera that has been specifically modified for IR photography. I understand the...

tonybear

Hi HH'ers, I'm considering getting a digital camera that has been specifically modified for IR photography.
I understand the modification can be done to either true DSLRs as well as the new generation of mirrorless digital cameras. Can you HH'rs chime in what the plusses or minuses one camera technology might have over the other?
Thanks.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

All things considered, I doubt if it makes any difference except for the cost. The only place it should make a difference is the sensor.

BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten

Focus issues will be resolved better on a mirrorless as all focusing takes place on the sensor.
My understanding anyway.
Plus adapters will let you use mf lenses on the mirrorless. Most of th,em any way, I have a couple of minolta maxxum (20mm and 17-35mm) that won’t get good focus due to a hard stop just short of infinity. In visible spectrum they work fine.

iamimdoc

Focus can be a problem on DSLR.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

I used “Lifepixel” for my IR conversion but before I did some research and found mirrorless to have many less issues and “cheaper” lenses have less issues with “hot spots” with mirrorless you don’t need to have your lens set up to focus because IR focuses differently than non IR

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

nicksr1125 wrote:

All things considered, I doubt if it makes any difference except for the cost. The only place it should make a difference is the sensor.

I agree. By "sensor," do you mean the IR filter (or whatever) installed in the camera? Some cameras are better than others for IR. I had my D40 converted even though it wasn't a top recommendation from LifePixel. It seems to work fine for IR, though. For any conversion, I would definitely get all the information possible from whomever is doing the conversion.

JBRIII

There can be issues with specific cameras so read everything Kolari and life pixel say. One of them, Life I think, mentions that, I believe the Canon R? has an internal IR led?, which can cause issues at low light levels. Fine for outdoors in daytime with plenty of IR, but inside or at night? One of the companies I believe has a list of cameras by quality for IR. Cost of conversion is about the same for a given set of conversion specs, the real cost is in the camera. Kolari does have three replacement hot mirror types, regular, anti reflection coated, and anti-smuge coated, which vary in cost.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The main advantage of mirrorless for IR is with full-spectrum conversions, where there is no internal IR filter installed and IR filters are used on the lens. With a DSLR you would be viewing and focusing through a very dark filter, but the mirrorless monitor will compensate. I have DSLR conversions with an internal filter and they work just fine. I don't worry about focus as I use a wide angle lens for IR and stop down to at least f8.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

JohnSwanda wrote:

The main advantage of mirrorless for IR is with full-spectrum conversions, where there is no internal IR filter installed and IR filters are used on the lens. With a DSLR you would be viewing and focusing through a very dark filter, but the mirrorless monitor will compensate. I have DSLR conversions with an internal filter and they work just fine. I don't worry about focus as I use a wide angle lens for IR and stop down to at least f8.

I had an Olympus Pen-F converted to full color conversion and never use a filter on the lens as there is no need as I see And I use a less expensive Olympus wide angle lens the lens has full range auto focus and I can use the setup as I would use any other camera I own it’s in the WB before shooting and in the post
It’s great fun

JBRIII

JohnSwanda wrote:

The main advantage of mirrorless for IR is with full-spectrum conversions, where there is no internal IR filter installed and IR filters are used on the lens. With a DSLR you would be viewing and focusing through a very dark filter, but the mirrorless monitor will compensate. I have DSLR conversions with an internal filter and they work just fine. I don't worry about focus as I use a wide angle lens for IR and stop down to at least f8.

I may be wrong, but I think we're confusing different mirrors here. Both mirror less and DSLR's contain what is called a hot mirror which blocks UV, IR and even part of the red, as camera sensors are too sensitive to red compared to humans. It is this mirror that is replaced during conversion in any camera. If replaced with a clear filter, the camera is now full spectrum, if UV blocking only it is now visible + IR, and requirs external IR filters, but can be used for RGB with an external IR blocking filter. I believe they can also use filters which block most of the visible, but allow some thru, plus the IR which means one does not need any external filter, but most of the visible is permanently loss (blocked) unless a new conversion is done. I do not think there is any difference in what is changed, changeable, etc. or options between mirror less and DSLRs.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

tonybear wrote:

Hi HH'ers, I'm considering getting a digital camera that has been specifically modified for IR photography.
I understand the modification can be done to either true DSLRs as well as the new generation of mirrorless digital cameras. Can you HH'rs chime in what the plusses or minuses one camera technology might have over the other?
Thanks.

Far less problems with focus on a mirrorless camera after conversion.

bwa

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Jeffcs wrote:

I had an Olympus Pen-F converted to full color conversion and never use a filter on the lens as there is no need as I see And I use a less expensive Olympus wide angle lens the lens has full range auto focus and I can use the setup as I would use any other camera I own it’s in the WB before shooting and in the post
It’s great fun

Superb shots and extremely eye-catching, as you well know🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Jeffcs wrote:

I had an Olympus Pen-F converted to full color conversion and never use a filter on the lens as there is no need as I see And I use a less expensive Olympus wide angle lens the lens has full range auto focus and I can use the setup as I would use any other camera I own it’s in the WB before shooting and in the post
It’s great fun

There has to be an IR filter somewhere, internal or on the lens. It looks like you have the conversion with an internal IR filter which passes some visible light to allow color IR photography.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

JBRIII wrote:

I may be wrong, but I think we're confusing differ... (show quote)

All that is correct. My point was that when the clear filter is installed and the IR filter is used on the lens on a DSLR, you are viewing and focusing through the very dark IR filter. A mirrorless camera monitor will compensate for the dark filter.

tonybear

I checked out the LifePixel website and I was impressed. Of particular interest were the IR VIDEO examples shot using an IR modified Sony RX-100 mirrorless camera. The slow motion video work in infra-red was just spectacular in my opinion. I was wondering if any of you HH'rs have had the RX-100 modified and how it works for you, either in still or video shooting scenarios?