I'm just wondering if hotspots are an issue with camera bodies that are modified for IR or if they're only an issue if you're doing long exposures with a filter. Thanks.
Dave
forsakenme720 Senior Member  910 posts Joined Mar 2006 More info | Feb 17, 2008 19:02 | #1 I'm just wondering if hotspots are an issue with camera bodies that are modified for IR or if they're only an issue if you're doing long exposures with a filter. Thanks. Cameras: Canon 20D, Canon Rebel XT (converted to infrared)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ben_r_ -POTN's Three legged Support-  15,894 posts Likes: 13 Joined Nov 2007 Location: Sacramento, CA More info | Feb 17, 2008 21:14 | #2 Same question here... I have been thinking about IR modding a 20D or XT... [Gear List | Flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mark_Cohran Cream of the Crop  More info | Feb 17, 2008 22:56 | #3 As far as I can tell from my research, the IR Hotspots are lens dependent. By that, I mean, it doesn't matter if you're using a converted camera or a filter, the lens is the critical element for IR hot spots. There's a list of good/bad lens for IR around here somewhere if you do a search. Mark
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 18, 2008 08:16 | #4 Mark_Cohran wrote in post #4938753  As far as I can tell from my research, the IR Hotspots are lens dependent. By that, I mean, it doesn't matter if you're using a converted camera or a filter, the lens is the critical element for IR hot spots. There's a list of good/bad lens for IR around here somewhere if you do a search. Now, if I'm wrong, I hope an IR expert will speak up and correct me. Yeah, I know it's dependent on the lens. The only thing is, I've never heard anyone complaining about hotspots with their converted bodies, only when using filters. This led me to believe that the long exposures are what was causing the hotspots with the particular lenses. It's just a guess, but it makes sense to me. So if anyone that has a converted body can comment... Cameras: Canon 20D, Canon Rebel XT (converted to infrared)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gasrocks Cream of the Crop  13,432 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2005 Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA More info | Feb 18, 2008 11:28 | #5 http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1 GEAR LIST
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tiktaalik Goldmember  1,213 posts Joined Feb 2006 Location: Southern California More info | Feb 18, 2008 11:50 | #6 I took this shot with a modified 10D and a 16-35.
The 16-35 is on the "not suitable for IR" list yet in my very brief testing I see no hotspots. On the other hand, when I was using a filter for IR my 28-135, which is on the 'suitable for IR' list, gave me a very ugly hotspot. I do think that some lenses are better than others for IR but that a modified body, with its shorter exposure times, is much more forgiving of a 'bad' lens. Julie
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 18, 2008 11:56 | #7 tiktaalik wrote in post #4941797 I do think that some lenses are better than others for IR but that a modified body, with its shorter exposure times, is much more forgiving of a 'bad' lens. That's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for giving me your experience with it. I really appreciate it. Cameras: Canon 20D, Canon Rebel XT (converted to infrared)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1556 guests, 135 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
