ZoneV wrote in post #11563405
I was not willing to have on of my two DSLr cameras permamently modified for infrared, back then. I want to have still a backup system for visible.
So I invented a way to excange the filter inside the camera: The filters are special grind down, and are now between mirror and shutter! The are directly on the shutter, and can be changed through the mirror box - on has to hold the mirror up, and work there with tweezers. On my camera AF is no longer working, but probably this can be fixed - I do not need AF.
Picture taken with that camera and Tokina 17 mm:
Very nice, though I don't particularly like those hexagonal lens flare spots.
Very good image, and good job for taking the initiative to actually do things for yourself when there was no one around to do it for you.
Though that makes me wonder...it ought to be very EASY for someone to do that for you, right? I mean...all you basically did was find a means to switch filters in the same camera. And in that case, you were working AGAINST the camera maker's design.
So...how much did it cost you to get that to work? How much time/effort/money did it cost you to retain the camera's initial functions while ADDING the ability to use infrared? Certainly less than the cost of a flat-out conversion, or else you would've just done that.
So...how expensive could it be for camera manufacturers to INCLUDE IR-passing filters along with IR-blocking filters, and to then allow both of those filters to be switched depending on the user's intent? I mean...if that were actually incorporated into the basic design of a camera model, and then distributed across thousands of units sold, then the cost of manufacturing a particular unit has to go down, right? So aside from the "they;re deliberately leaving that capability out in order to make you buy TWO cameras if you want to do infrared", is there any reason why infrared capabilities can't be utilized on a camera that allows switching between infrared and visible light modes? You already modified your camera to do BOTH, and that was working against the original design. If the manufacturers simply incorporated that design into the camera in the first place, and then distributed the research/development/manufacturing costs across THOUSANDS of units sold, what would be the actual cost (per unit sold) for someone like Canon to include that feature as one of the basic functions of their SLRs?