Pentax K5IIs - Infrared
6,724 posts
Link
Posted 02/02/2015 - 22:36
you could buy a *istDS or similar and not have to do any conversion, just use an Ir filter
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Link
Posted 02/02/2015 - 23:19
The later bodies are relatively insensitive to IR, so the *istDS is a good choice.
Best regards, John
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 03/02/2015 - 00:00
The K-5iis is poor with a R72 filter. Much better results can be had with an older body, my K-x worked well with the R72.
Regards
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com
Flickr
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Regards
David
My Website http://imagesbydavidstorm.foliopic.com
Flickr
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Link
Posted 03/02/2015 - 11:04
gartmore wrote:
you could buy a *istDS or similar and not have to do any conversion, just use an Ir filter
you could buy a *istDS or similar and not have to do any conversion, just use an Ir filter
johnriley wrote:
The later bodies are relatively insensitive to IR, so the *istDS is a good choice.
The later bodies are relatively insensitive to IR, so the *istDS is a good choice.
Please tell me more. I've always admired IR black and white photography and just this week have been inspired by Bill Ward's recent work. Can I just buy a screw on filter for my disused IstDS or will I have to have the camera body sensor modified in some way?
David
PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout
PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout
Last Edited by davidtrout on 03/02/2015 - 11:05
Link
Posted 03/02/2015 - 13:51
You can just use a screw in filter David, the R72 is the one I have. It blocks all visible light and the viewfinder image will be black. Therefore, tripod is best, focus before you put the filter on. The lens will focus IR at a different point to visible light, so ideally the point of focus would have to be shifted, but if you use a small aperture then you can get away with this. Older lenses have an IR correction mark. Focus then shift the focus to the red mark.
Exposure times will increase. The amount of IR light varies enormously, but the traditional subjects are well known so have fun.
Best regards, John
Exposure times will increase. The amount of IR light varies enormously, but the traditional subjects are well known so have fun.
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 03/02/2015 - 19:04
I used a 35mm SMC Takumar because the Takumars have ain infrared focussing index.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Link
Posted 03/02/2015 - 19:39
The K5 is superb for IR. I don't see any reason why the k5iis wouldn't be as good; it probably performs worse than some cameras without conversion because the IR filter in front of the sensor is stronger. A conversion removes this filter and replaces it with one that blocks some of the visible spectrum. However, I've not seen pics from a converted k5iis.
Cameras with Live View are better candidates for conversion imo because you can use AF as LV uses contrast detection rather than phase detection AF. . I've had both an *istDL and a k20D converted, and while they are both great IR cameras, LV adds more flexibility, ie it's easy to use zooms as you can use AF. It's also easier to use manual focus in Live View as you see what's on the sensor.. I now have an unmentionable other brand IR camera, as I wanted an EVF; screens can be difficult to see in bright sunlight, which is when you will most use the camera.
Converted cameras provide sharper images than they did as normal cameras, so I don't see the lack of an AA filter as any advantage at all.
A vast amount of lenses produce hot-spots when stopped down, so relying on small apertures to increase DOF is not a viable option unless you choose your lenses very carefully.
Of the cameras you mentioned, I'd say the k7 or the K5 would be the best candidate.
Edit: I have just seen that Spencers a reputable company for IR conversions (my current IR camera was bought from them) offer conversions on the K5iis, so it evidently is suitable for conversion as they don't offer conversions on cameras that are unsuitable.
Flurble
My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook
Cameras with Live View are better candidates for conversion imo because you can use AF as LV uses contrast detection rather than phase detection AF. . I've had both an *istDL and a k20D converted, and while they are both great IR cameras, LV adds more flexibility, ie it's easy to use zooms as you can use AF. It's also easier to use manual focus in Live View as you see what's on the sensor.. I now have an unmentionable other brand IR camera, as I wanted an EVF; screens can be difficult to see in bright sunlight, which is when you will most use the camera.
Converted cameras provide sharper images than they did as normal cameras, so I don't see the lack of an AA filter as any advantage at all.
A vast amount of lenses produce hot-spots when stopped down, so relying on small apertures to increase DOF is not a viable option unless you choose your lenses very carefully.
Of the cameras you mentioned, I'd say the k7 or the K5 would be the best candidate.
Edit: I have just seen that Spencers a reputable company for IR conversions (my current IR camera was bought from them) offer conversions on the K5iis, so it evidently is suitable for conversion as they don't offer conversions on cameras that are unsuitable.
Flurble
My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Last Edited by aliengrove on 03/02/2015 - 19:55
Link
Posted 04/02/2015 - 12:08
The AA filter may absorb a little IR so the K5iis may be very slightly more sensitive than the K5 but the AA filter could probably be removed during the conversion of the K5 anyway so there may not be any real gain.
Personally I wouldn't expect the difference to be noticable.
As Aliengrove says the conversion gets round the poor IR sensitivity of the standard K5. All the previous posts (other than comments on focus shift) relate to unconverted cameras.
Once converted outdoor exposures with a 720nm filter are typically similar to normal visible light exposures. Reasonable results are acheivable with the K100 & earlier models when unconverted, it doesn't seem worthwhile to convert these unless you're trying the conversion yourself and already have them as a spare body. If your paying >£200 to have the internal cut filter removed you may as well splash out a little more & get it done to a more recent body.
With an unconverted K100 hand held exposures are possible with fast lenses at high ISO.
I have managed to get IR images from an unconverted K7, but they wern't any use & took a lot of effort. There could easily have been half the exposure from trace visible light getting past the 720nm filter as IR effects were much less noticable than I've got with the K100. To get anything at all I had to use long exposures at high ISO.
My converted camera is micro four thirds so I don't post it's images here (see my Flickr or the IR forum), but it can eailsy manage fast shutter speeds even with an 850nm filter. Getting a conversion completely opens up IR!
You still have the decision of which conversion to get as well. If you're using liveview a full spectrum conversion gives the most flexibilty - you can add any filter to the frontof the lens to change the focal length you're working with. IMO that makes the K-01 worth considering despite it's looks!
Mike
.
Pentax:K5ii, K7, K100D, DA18-55, DA10-17, DA55-300, DA50-200, F100-300, F50, DA35 AL, 4* M50, 2* M135, Helicoid extension, Tak 300 f4 (& 6 film bodies)
3rd Party: Bigmos (Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM),2* 28mm, 100mm macro, 28-200 zoom, 35-80 zoom, 80-200 zoom, 80-210 zoom, 300mm M42, 600 mirror, 1000-4000 scope, 50mm M42, enlarger lenses, Sony & micro 4/3 cameras with various PK mounts, Zenit E...
Far to many tele-converters, adapters, project parts & extension tubes etc.
.[size=11:].Flickr• WPF• Panoramio
Personally I wouldn't expect the difference to be noticable.
As Aliengrove says the conversion gets round the poor IR sensitivity of the standard K5. All the previous posts (other than comments on focus shift) relate to unconverted cameras.
Once converted outdoor exposures with a 720nm filter are typically similar to normal visible light exposures. Reasonable results are acheivable with the K100 & earlier models when unconverted, it doesn't seem worthwhile to convert these unless you're trying the conversion yourself and already have them as a spare body. If your paying >£200 to have the internal cut filter removed you may as well splash out a little more & get it done to a more recent body.
With an unconverted K100 hand held exposures are possible with fast lenses at high ISO.
I have managed to get IR images from an unconverted K7, but they wern't any use & took a lot of effort. There could easily have been half the exposure from trace visible light getting past the 720nm filter as IR effects were much less noticable than I've got with the K100. To get anything at all I had to use long exposures at high ISO.
My converted camera is micro four thirds so I don't post it's images here (see my Flickr or the IR forum), but it can eailsy manage fast shutter speeds even with an 850nm filter. Getting a conversion completely opens up IR!
You still have the decision of which conversion to get as well. If you're using liveview a full spectrum conversion gives the most flexibilty - you can add any filter to the frontof the lens to change the focal length you're working with. IMO that makes the K-01 worth considering despite it's looks!
Mike
.
Pentax:K5ii, K7, K100D, DA18-55, DA10-17, DA55-300, DA50-200, F100-300, F50, DA35 AL, 4* M50, 2* M135, Helicoid extension, Tak 300 f4 (& 6 film bodies)
3rd Party: Bigmos (Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM),2* 28mm, 100mm macro, 28-200 zoom, 35-80 zoom, 80-200 zoom, 80-210 zoom, 300mm M42, 600 mirror, 1000-4000 scope, 50mm M42, enlarger lenses, Sony & micro 4/3 cameras with various PK mounts, Zenit E...
Far to many tele-converters, adapters, project parts & extension tubes etc.
.[size=11:].Flickr• WPF• Panoramio
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
VividArt
Member
Vancouver
I have the k5IIs, I love the camera. I have had the K10d, the K20d, the K7, the first k5 and I tried the K3.
The question is this. Would the K5IIs be a better candidate for IR conversion? I am close to 60,000 clicks on this body, was thinking of getting another one and converting the somewhat tired one to IR. Is the lack of low pass filter any benefit to IR photography? Or is this camera going to work well with just an R72, for example.
Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
Regards everyone,
JMD