DSLRUsers.com

I know that a few members here have IR converted cameras, and have been very interested in playing with one (possibly buying one or getting one converted - when I have the money).

I have been doing a fair bit of reading on the subject (yes I have been procrastinating again) and have discovered that our own DaveB used to do conversions. However two names come have consistently come up, the first is lifepixel and the other is maxmax.

I was wondering if anyone would like to share their experiences in obtaining an IR camera (who you got to convert it, trader opinions, did you convert it yourself...costs etc), and their experience in using an IR converted camera (AF!! there is a DIY guide that shows how you can adjust the AF using an allen key in the D40 and others say you have to IR convert the AF sensor, maxmax claims they have no AF issues). BTW what camera models (esp Nikon) are good for IR conversion (I have read that the D300 is not all that good for it) I am thinking/looking at D40x/60/80.

Just another useless enquiry about something that I would love to play with but will probably not get for a long time (more glass will come first i think - Tokina 10-17.....Nikkor 14-24.....Nikkor 85mm f/1.4), but I didnt see any harm in asking.

ive been doing the same cam with pretty much teh same result you have. daveb referred me to camera clinic in melb. i emailed them and have yet to receive any response though. apparently the d50/d70 are great IR conversion candidates.

I looked for a while but didnt have a spare body so ended up getting a an EOS 300D already converted off Ebay from the States. All up it was probably the same cost as shipping my own to lifepixel or similar. Think it was about $400 AUD. probably a good price but if youre patient you might find a converted Nikon.

I'm happy with it but dont use it as much as i thought.

No idea with Nikon but with alot of Canon lenses you get a hotspot. not just the cheapies, some L as well. Canon list- http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_infra_red_IR.html

Its great to have as something different and being able to handhold just makes it more useable. I tried for a while with an R72 filter but exposure was in the seconds.

Robert

Robert, do you know where your 300D was converted and have you had any AF accuracy issues with this camera?

That seems to be a REALLY good price for a converted camera, getting one converted at lifepixel or maxmax appears to be even more expensive than that (and that is not even including the camera body)

just got a response from the guys cam which includes a pricelist. let me know if you want me to forward it to you. the filters themselves seem standard across the board so i dont know why lifepixel et al charge more. the price quoted in melb is doable cost.

Rooz, I would appreciate it if you can let me know what Camera Clinic quoted for an IR conversion, or even an approximate. I have a Nikon D70s sitting around unused and have thought for a while about getting it converted to IR. Thanks and cheers.

Pm me your email addy and i'll forward it on to you. its a pdf document.

I kept looking almost daily for months for a camera at that price.. couldnt afford any more than that for how much i expected to use it.

Even after a few emails i never discovered who did the conversion, other than "professional" whatever that means...
The AF was also adjusted so autofocusses well.

Havent had any issues in the few years since i got it. older nikons and canons tend to be around $750 on ebay, with a conversion costing around $400 plus post.

I am yet to get a shot that i am really proud of, but that is definately me not the camera.

aim54x wrote:I was wondering if anyone would like to share their experiences in obtaining an IR camera (who you got to convert it, trader opinions, did you convert it yourself...costs etc), and their experience in using an IR converted camera

I am aware that the thread title is for a "DSLR", but I have had an experience in obtaining an IR camera (non-dslr).
I had David Burren convert it for me (around Feb 2007), excellent service, A++++++++, great communication, fast delivery, wouldn't hesitate to send other cameras to him to convert (if he continued converting them).

It was a Canon G2; experience in using it? It's nice to use - I love it, my friends love it, we all love it....

email response from wayne today after i asked him which body to buy. seems like a good bloke.

Chris
There are plenty of good second hand bodies around, look for 6mp+ and low shutter release count, (this can be checked at a service centre) if you are looking at new try to avoid bodies with auto sensor cleaning.

You want a full spectrum conversion, this will allow UV to IR sensitivity, by placing a filter over the lens you can limit the spectrum however when using an IR filter it is not possible to see through the VF therefore a camera with live view might be better.

The focus is set to visible light with a full spectrum conversion, as the IR and UV focus on different frequency’s you must manually set the focus for these spectrums.

Regards
Wayne Rogers

Camera Clinic
Professional photographic equipment repairs

P 61 3 9419 5247 F 61 3 9417 7628

Thanks for the reply Adam, I have been lead to believe that DaveB no longer does conversions unfortunately.

Rooz,

I would have thought that if i was going to go to the trouble of getting a conversion done I would get a IR only body with the AF adjusted (maxmax's claim to have fixed the AF so it is accurate with any lens sounds very tempting - I have found a ebay retailer who makes the same claim). If i was to go and get a full spectrum conversion then i would just go with a D200 or D300 and have them remove the AA filter at the same time (ie get the maxmax HR but with full spectrum) but the expense incurred makes it less worthwhile in my opinion as you still have trouble focusing and framing (a R72 on the lens renders the viewfinder almost useless as I have been lead to believe).

Let me know what you end up doing, I will be very eager to have a look at the converted camera (and have a play if that is possible). As for a body recommendation, i would be thinking D80 or D200 dependent on the price, or even a D40x/60 although the D60 does have a self cleaning sensor

Cheers
Cameron

dedicated IR body is what i'm looking at for sure.
still dont get the focus thing though...is the calibration issue with AF that the AF system itself is off, ie: you focus on point A and it focuses on point B or is it just that it cant get a lock ?

Rooz wrote:is the calibration issue with AF that the AF system itself is off, ie: you focus on point A and it focuses on point B or is it just that it cant get a lock ?

Neither.

IR has a different wavelength to white light, and therefore it focuses into a different plane than white light.

As AF systems are calibrated for white light, they cannot - by design - focus for IR, and thus you need to manually focus.

If you have any older glass, you will often see a secondary focus mark on the lens for IR focusing.

From what I have read it appears that you have to get to the AF sensor and replace the filter on that to an IR filter that is the same as your new filter over your image sensor...this sounds plausible to me, but in reality would any of the conversion places actually go to the trouble?? LifePixel will recalibrate to one lens (ie 50mm f/1.8, or 18-70 (at 50mm)) but maxmax claims to have no AF issues (do they replace the AF sensor filter??)

A lot of people claim to have few problems when shooting IR with converted bodies (even home conversions) so it would be interesting to see how much difference there actually is....i guess if you are using a wide angle lens that is stopped down you would never be able to tell!

This is probably of no help, however the expense and the amount of use it would get put me off getting an IR conversion. At the time I had a D200 and decide to try with a IR filter. I purchased a COkin filter set secondhand that included a IR filter.. Big mistake..

Further investigation found that the Cokin IR filters are not a true IR filter so I grabbed r72 (from one of the members here if I remember). This was much better , but further investigation found that the D200 was not the best candidate for what I wanted to do. Long shutter speeds and near zero view through the finder. Didnt stop me playing though.

I used the channel swap process thing for these.




These were with the D200 + R72. you can see the problems with eh long shutter times.

Then I grabbed a D70s for my daughter. The view finder is still dim as you are looking through the filter, however the shutter speeds are normal. Which turns out much more acceptable results. I dont have any thing online to link to but it is much better.
I then lost interest in IR , so it turned out a much cheaper exercise than getting a body converted.

None of this probably helps but I though I would share my experience.

Good luck

MATT

Thanks Matt, I guess I could try a R72 on the S5 Pro (the D300 not being great for IR). You have a very good point, I will probably get bored of IR and it would have been a huge waste of money if I did get a body converted.

This is an interesting link on IR.. Particularly like the "WET" clothes test LOL..

http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/experiments.shtml


Beach Meet anyone?

MATT

an IR converted body can be had for around the $700 mark if you're prepared to have an older body, (which is my intention). i dont think that's too steep...even if you do only use it infrequently.

Rooz wrote:an IR converted body can be had for around the $700 mark if you're prepared to have an older body, (which is my intention). i dont think that's too steep...even if you do only use it infrequently.

For a poor student, I am sure that money could be better spent on glass or a ball head......

I have been looking at the ones on ebay (Mountain Banyan conversions) as well and their D70's look tempting!

Late to the party...

Re getting a "full spectrum" ("UV/IR") conversion:
This will require putting the appropriate filter on the front of the lens. While this works fine for cameras with electronic viewfinders (think Live View) it's not very convenient for DSLR cameras. The viewfinder tends to go black...

I'm currently investigating getting a Panasonic Lumix G1 (which has an EVF) converted this way for use with three 52mm filters: B+W 486 (for visible work), 695nm (for false-colour IR) and 830nm (for monochrome IR). With the kit 14-45mm (28-90 mm-e) stabilised lens this could be quite nice.


Re AF calibration:
Changing the IR filters over the AF sensors should indeed cause the AF system to match the sensor's focus (as long as you exactly matched the filtration in terms of thickness/filtration/refractive-index/etc). But the view through the optical viewfinder would be OOF (your eye works with visible light).
We tend to leave the AF system so it matches the viewfinder and you can choose manual/AF as suits you. The "simple" trick of moving the sensor back/forward fractions of a mm (literally, I have shims ranging from 0.03mm up to 0.35mm) tends to work. When the visible-light image is in focus in the viewfinder (and the AF system) the matching IR image is in focus on the sensor. This does tend to fall apart slightly with some lenses though (typically ultrawides). But in general it works for all lenses.

For example one of the highly-commended images in the 2008 ANZANG competition (in the B&W section) was of a Gannet in flight, taken with AF using a 350D/830nm IR body converted this way and a 100-400mm lens. The focus calibration on that body was done with the standard "tool lens": a 50mm/1.8.


Re self-cleaning sensors (see Cameron's comment about the D60):
These "self-cleaning" sensor designs tend to have multiple thin pieces of filter over the sensor, with the top one vibrated by a piezo-electric element. Be aware that many (most) conversions of these bodies involve removal of the entire set of filters and replacement by a single (non-vibrating) IR filter.


Re processing IR images:
No one's mentioned the issue here, but processing IR images is a skill unto itself. I've got an article about the technical side of this online (new as of this month).

Thanks for the info Dave. I guess maxmax hopes that we think they change the AF filter to match...but what they really do is a bit of a mystery until we take a converted camera apart. I take it that most places (lifepixel and your own service) take the route of using shims.

Maybe it is time to go shopping for a D80....*off dreaming*

Dave are there any plans to do more conversions in the future? The G1 would be an interesting prospect as an IR camera

There are some tweaks to the camera's AF that can be made via the service software (e.g. it has smarts based on the lens being used) so maxmax is not necessarily telling fibs.

Indeed the G1 is an interesting prospect. I'll let you know.

aim54x wrote:I know that a few members here have IR converted cameras, and have been very interested in playing with one (possibly buying one or getting one converted - when I have the money)

i converted a d70 to ir with a filter from lifepixels ( i believe it cost me about $90 for the filter ) it wasnt hard using their tutorial from their webpage, i then dropped the camera and got a second hand one and converted that also( taking the filter out of the dropped one ) the d70 is the easiest camera to convert, there are a few ir pics here http://robw.smugmug.com/gallery/1651303_GyPZS#327825087_3jr9Z

cheers rob

i just posted my old CP5700 to camera clinic for conversion. will keep you updated on how it went. ($295)

Thanks!!! Now I guess I will have to keep an eye out for a cheap second hand Nikon SLR if this goes well for you....now to find the money...

i seriously thought of an older dslr but a $800-$1k investment was just too steep for me until i know IR is something i will enjoy.

A couple of thoughts.

I am looking to do this too. I would be happy to do my own conversion etc but couldn't you just buy a screw in filter and cut it to size and do the conversion? I also maybe found a german glass company that makes the glass so I would have thought it would be cheaper to buy the glass direct rather than going through middlemen all the time.

I will let everyone know what I find.

do let us know!

Putting an IR-pass filter in front of the lens won't do the job on an SLR. Not only do you still have the IR-blocking filter in front of the sensor (common to almost all digital cameras) but you also have the problem of the viewfinder going dark (your eyes aren't very good at IR) and the AF not working (it doesn't like IR either).

As for getting glass from the manufacturer and using it directly: I source filter glass of various types from Schott in Germany (I've got an account with them). It comes in "blanks" of various sizes (sometimes polished, sometimes not) and thicknesses (e.g. 1, 2, or 3mm) and needs to be cut to the right shape, ground to the right thickness, and then polished before it's useful. This is not something you can do at home. The smallest blank you can get is 50mm-square. I get the cutting/grinding/polishing done as small jobs at industrial glass work shops. The one I used to use was near Sydney and eventually they decided that my jobs were too small and fiddly for them to help me, and I ended up finding one in Melbourne.

For something like an EOS 30D, the glass needs to be close to 2mm in thickness, and cut to a simple rectangle of the right size. Some models share the same filter dimensions, while some need it cut to a slightly smaller size.
For something like a D70, it's held down by clamps at the edges and they don't cope with glass being too thick. About 1mm and they're fine. But if you have a 1mm filter it (A) is very fragile, and (B) doesn't cut out enough visible light to do the job properly. The original D70 filter is actually a sandwich of clear glass on the bottom and IR-absorbent glass on top (the top bit doesn't cover the whole area: the clamps just grab the bottom area). For the D70/etc conversions I tend to use 2mm glass which I've had ground down to ~1.5mm, then cut to the right overall size, polished, then the edges ground down to ~1mm.
Working with filters thinner than 1mm is nigh-on-impossible. You get too many breakages. I managed to get some down to 0.8mm so I could use them in 400D conversions (two 0.8mm filters: equiv to one 1.6mm filter, except one of them is vibrated). BTW, twice I've had IR-pass blanks cut/ground down to size, installed in a camera, then found a "dust spot" that just couldn't be removed. Turns out it was an imperfection in the glass, but only visible in IR! I try to check filters with an existing converted camera first, but you need a good IR macro rig to do this effectively.

So you are getting something better than just a piece of glass. All this work involves time, money, wastage (e.g. you don't get an even number of filters out of each blank), and QA. Also Schott doesn't keep large stocks of glass around: you place your order, it comes off the next month's production run, and you manage your own stocks of glass.

If you're after a specific glass let me know: I may have some stock of it. I don't have any Nikon-size filters on-hand, but I do have some pre-cut for other models as well as some "new" Schott blanks.

I'm hopeful of finally getting my hands on a Lumix G1 next month. I've already read the G1 service manuals and aim to replace the internal IR-blocking filter with clear glass (probably Schott WG280, as I know it lets through IR, visible, and well into UV). Not yet sure how thin the filter needs to be (or how many: the G1 has anti-dust vibration) as the service manual doesn't expect techs to be working on that bit.
I'll then be able to experiment with various 52mm screw-in filters on the G1's kit 14-42mm lens, switching between visible light, false-colour IR, and "deep"/mono IR in the field. It works with a camera like this because everything (exposure, AF, viewfinder) works via the main sensor.
If that works the way I hope I'll probably be selling off my Canon S70 and 400D "deep IR" cameras.

DaveB wrote:I'm hopeful of finally getting my hands on a Lumix G1 next month. I've already read the G1 service manuals and aim to replace the internal IR-blocking filter with clear glass (probably Schott WG280, as I know it lets through IR, visible, and well into UV). Not yet sure how thin the filter needs to be (or how many: the G1 has anti-dust vibration) as the service manual doesn't expect techs to be working on that bit.
I'll then be able to experiment with various 52mm screw-in filters on the G1's kit 14-42mm lens, switching between visible light, false-colour IR, and "deep"/mono IR in the field. It works with a camera like this because everything (exposure, AF, viewfinder) works via the main sensor.
If that works the way I hope I'll probably be selling off my Canon S70 and 400D "deep IR" cameras.

Fingers crossed for you Dave, have you considered the EP-1 as an IR candidate? If you are getting rid of the 400D let me know, I may be interested, despite the all the wrong turning dials.....

aim54x wrote:have you considered the EP-1 as an IR candidate?

Yes, and I've discounted it.
The G1 has two viewfinders: the big LCD and the one behind the eyepiece. Being able to use the camera in bright sunlight is important, and the resolution of the EVF in the G1 is impressive.
The E-P1 has just the LCD (and recent reviews indicate that it's not as high-res as recent DSLRs).

Also those reviews indicate that the AF is rather sluggish in comparison to the G1. Ok, so it's early days for the E-P1 and this might get tweaked in firmware, but the lack of an EVF is the big stumbling-block.
Also, indications are that the Panasonic 14-42 kit lens performs well in IR (in terms of flare/hotspots). Not sure about the Olympus equivalent.

Hi Dave,

Yeh well that rules me out. I thought you would be able to just buy the glass etc and cut it to size and replace IR blocking. I didn't realise it had to be ground down etc! A little naive of me! lol

I am chasing glass for a 400D conversion. From what I understand you either have the two pieces of glass and maintain the cleaning mech or you use one and disable the cleaning mech.... Not 100% sure on that, your the man to ask on that one. Schott was the company I was looking at as well they have the RG715 which is what I am chasing I think is the middle of the road that can produce false colour.

There also is the autofocus element to it all but I think I could handle that as well.

That is crazy how you found a imperfection in the glass in the IR range!

If you have any 400D filters lying around I would be more than happy to buy them. Just shoot me a PM if you do, with cost etc.

Ethan_09 wrote:I am chasing glass for a 400D conversion. From what I understand you either have the two pieces of glass and maintain the cleaning mech or you use one and disable the cleaning mech....

Yep. If you want to maintain the cleaning you also need to epoxy onto the edges of the front filter two tiny metal brackets to fit into the vibration mechanism. These first need to be removed from the original filter (which as you might guess usually involves the destruction of that filter) as I never found an alternate source for them.

Schott was the company I was looking at as well they have the RG715 which is what I am chasing I think is the middle of the road that can produce false colour.

RG715 or RG695 would indeed be my recommendation for false-colour.

If you have any 400D filters lying around I would be more than happy to buy them. Just shoot me a PM if you do, with cost etc.

Sorry, nope.

Yeh Cheers,

I ended up getting my hands on a 400D that had already had the conversion done. I was keen to do it myself but the more and more I learnt, the more and more I decided that it probably wasn't a great idea.

Finally the G1 is on its way. Once it arrives and I've used it a bit for "normal" photography I'll be taking it apart to work out the appropriate filter dimensions, then I'll be getting the new glass cut/ground/polished to size (I have a few blanks of the UV/vis/IR-clear glass on hand already for this experiment) and will hopefully be able to proceed with the conversion.

So things are happening, albeit slowly. Ended up getting a G1 with a blue body, as the black ones seem to be in short supply at the moment.

got my camera back today. they also replaced the CCD chip under a nikon recall. cannot speak highly enuf about the service. friendly and great communication. thanks for the recommendation Dave.

now...can anyone direct me to a decent tutorial on how to edit images shot in IR. ie: glowing white foliage/ grass etc and blue sky.

Rooz wrote:got my camera back today. they also replaced the CCD chip under a nikon recall. cannot speak highly enuf about the service. friendly and great communication. thanks for the recommendation Dave.

now...can anyone direct me to a decent tutorial on how to edit images shot in IR. ie: glowing white foliage/ grass etc and blue sky.

When was that recall dated back to? Sounds like great service to me!

I think there is a decent one on the lifepixel site from memory

aim54x wrote:When was that recall dated back to? Sounds like great service to me!

2004 i think. lol

funny thing is that it had its sensor replaced about 12months ago due to the same issue and it worked fine. but nikon must have used an old serial number CCD cos they said the SN of mine didnt match up with the CCD's that were supposed to have been used.

Rooz wrote:now...can anyone direct me to a decent tutorial on how to edit images shot in IR. ie: glowing white foliage/ grass etc and blue sky.

You are shooting in RAW aren't you? Which filter did you have installed? Presumably one that gives you false colour (instead of monochrome)?

Have you looked at http://khromagery.com.au/ir_raw.html?
Also http://khromagery.com.au/digital_ir.html#false (an older article) might be useful.

yepp, shooting in raw. filer is a standard colour IR filter, (equivalent to Hoya R72 / Kodak Wratten 89b / 720nm), taking manual WB reading off green grass. i get a god awful magenta cast when i open it in CS3; its not red. sowhen i'm doing the colour swap in channel mixer i end up with what looks liek a mono image. and i cant get a blue sky at all. i'll post up an example. could use some help...

Rooz wrote:yepp, shooting in raw. filer is a standard colour IR filter, (equivalent to Hoya R72 / Kodak Wratten 89b / 720nm), taking manual WB reading off green grass. i get a god awful magenta cast when i open it in CS3; its not red.

Red or not, it sounds like you'll benefit from a custom DNG profile. The custom WB you set in-camera makes the LCD view and the histogram behave sensibly, but it will be such an extreme value that ACR will be throwing up its hands and ignoring it. You should definitely read the IR RAW article I linked above.

If you can put a RAW file somewhere I can pick it up from (yousendit.com ?) I'll be happy to make a custom DNG profile and show you what can be done.

DaveB wrote:

Rooz wrote:yepp, shooting in raw. filer is a standard colour IR filter, (equivalent to Hoya R72 / Kodak Wratten 89b / 720nm), taking manual WB reading off green grass. i get a god awful magenta cast when i open it in CS3; its not red.

Red or not, it sounds like you'll benefit from a custom DNG profile. The custom WB you set in-camera makes the LCD view and the histogram behave sensibly, but it will be such an extreme value that ACR will be throwing up its hands and ignoring it. You should definitely read the IR RAW article I linked above.

If you can put a RAW file somewhere I can pick it up from (yousendit.com ?) I'll be happy to make a custom DNG profile and show you what can be done.

can i email it to you ? (i dont know what the heck yousendit.com is ??)
the main thing i want to know is that what i want to get as an outcome can be achieved. i dont mind having to work and learn to get there, but i dont want to waste alot of energy and frustration if in fact what i want to achieve is unachievable...if that makes sense.

(the last photo in the raw article you linked to is what i want...blue sky, white trees).

RAW files are typically too large to email.
You could put it on a website and send me a URL to download from.

Yousendit.com (check out the website) is a free service where you can upload the file to their site and it will send a URL to your specified recipients.

DaveB wrote:RAW files are typically too large to email.
You could put it on a website and send me a URL to download from.

Yousendit.com (check out the website) is a free service where you can upload the file to their site and it will send a URL to your specified recipients.

gotcha. can you IM me your email addy and i'll upload it there.

UPDATE:

CP5700 conversion didnt go very well. the pics looked like crap and i couldnt get the blue sky i wanted, they all had a strong magenta cast across the whole image. after getting dave's help, he couldn't manage it either and his guess was that the sensor isn't suitable for achieving the look i wanted. (feel free to elaborate here dave).

i contacted CC and told them the problem and proposed a solution of giving me an IR conversion credit for a dslr and i send the CP5700 back to them to onsell it for people wanting a camera for mono IR. they were good enuf to agree. now, i did advise them b4 the conversion, (and linked them to photos), that i specifically wanted this to be able to be used for colour IR; despite this they still didn't really have to credit me for it cos its essentially the owners responsibility to make sure that the camera is capable of doing what they want after conversion. nevertheless, great customer service on their part to work out a deal that doesn't put them either of us out of pocket and left unhappy. if only all retailers were this reasonable huh ?

so, i bought a refurbed d60 from ebay, ($459 shipped with the 18-55VR lens...goddam bargain especially considering its with all the original packaging and has a shutter count of 6 !!! ), and its on its way to CC for an IR conversion. will let you know how it all goes.

Rooz wrote:yepp, shooting in raw. filer is a standard colour IR filter, (equivalent to Hoya R72 / Kodak Wratten 89b / 720nm), taking manual WB reading off green grass. i get a god awful magenta cast when i open it in CS3; its not red. sowhen i'm doing the colour swap in channel mixer i end up with what looks liek a mono image. and i cant get a blue sky at all. i'll post up an example. could use some help...

I am no expert, but if you follow these steps you should have some success:
I picked up a few tips from a thread on dpreview. From memory, it goes like this (that's what I've done):
-WB: set wb on preset on measure on a piece of green grass. (No green grass as you would know, so I used a green bag from Aldi...about the same colour as Woolies and so on)
-Remove filter.
-Compose and manual focus.
-Put filter back on. (Obviously the camera is on a tripod)
-Shoot (Underexposed seems to work better)
PP
-Open in PS
-Auto levels
-Into channel mixer:red channel=red 0% / blue=100%
blue channel= red100% / blue0%
-Into saturation:red= -100
magenta= -100%
That's it!
You can play around with the settings in the channel mixer and so on...
This is from one of my old posts.
I hope it helps.

We worked directly from the RAW data, and everything in the image was the same hue. No matter what white balance was chosen, we got an essentially monochrome result.
So thanks glamy, but those instructions won't help in this case.

When I converted CoolPix's in the past to IR I was using a "deep" IR filter that usually does produce effects like this. But this 5700 had apparently been converted with a filter that let in a broader range of wavelengths and these wavelengths usually interact with the sensor's Bayer filters to produce different hues. I have used these filters on a variety of other cameras.
The theory is that the sensor (and internal Bayer filters) on the 5700 has dramatically different behaviour to the other cameras this filter type has been successful with.
The D60 should be a better bet.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread...

Rooz wrote:so, i bought a refurbed d60 from ebay, ($459 shipped with the 18-55VR lens...goddam bargain especially considering its with all the original packaging and has a shutter count of 6 !!! ), and its on its way to CC for an IR conversion. will let you know how it all goes.

Did you get this one off Cameta Camera as well (I got my D60 body only off them - 7 shutter actuations). How did the conversion go?

On a similar note...does anyone know how well a D60 goes for IR without modification?

cam i got it from adorama. wayne from C-C contacted me today and said it should ship back to me this week, (converted), so the answer to your last question is about a week away.

i've got my fingers crossed.

Rooz wrote:cam i got it from adorama. wayne from C-C contacted me today and said it should ship back to me this week, (converted), so the answer to your last question is about a week away.

i've got my fingers crossed.

Great to hear that you will soon have a dedicated IR body....JEALOUS....you must show me when you get it. I am going to borrow a R72 filter off a friend this week so i will have a play with it on the D60 and the S5 Pro, hopefully this will result in a workable solution. I have grown too attached to my D60 to have it converted I think (lets not talk money)