Want to make a purchase for a Lifepixel conversion. Would I be better served to pick up a used D200 or a new D90? I'm leaning toward the D90 because of older camera issues.
Thanks for any input.
Kathy


http://kathycavallaro.smugmug.com/

Hi Kathy

The general feeling is that the D200 CCD sensor is more responsive to IR than the CMOS sensor of newer cameras. I don't think this should be the only factor in your decision, as I have seen some excellent results with CMOS cameras.

I expect you can find a low mileage D200 for $500-600. The advantage of the D200 would be shared battery and CF cards with newer models.

The D300 - and I think the D90 - have Live View - a plus for sharp focus of IR.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Hi Kathy,

As Eric already stated, the specific camera body shouldn't be the only decisive factor.

Lifepixel now offers no less than 4 different IR filters:
-Standard IR filter (720nm filter)
-Enhanced Color IR filter (665nm filter)
-Super Color IR filter (590nm filter)
-Deep Black&White IR Filter (830nm filter)

The lower the nm filter value, the more visible light will pass through.
Each filter has a very specific look, and will have a high impact on your final results.

Personally, I converted my "old" D100 with a Lifepixel Standard IR filter myself, and I am generally pleased with the results.
Being an old fan of Fuji Velvia and Kodak E100VS slide film, their new Super Color IR filter intrigues me though. If I did the conversion now, that probably would have been my choice.
But, it all boils down to personal style and preferences.

Good luck with your decision, you'll be amazed anyway, it's a whole new world!
Best regards, Peter

Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner. (Anonymus)
Look, I'm not an intellectual - I just take pictures. (Helmut Newton)

Visit my Nikonians gallery or my Flickr gallery.

Hi Peter,
Thanks for your response! I was also a fan of Fuji Velvia, and find myself using that same name filter in Nik Efex frequently. Based on that, and numerous discussions with David at Lifepixel. I have decided to go with the Super Color IR. My thinking is that I want the most visible light, and can always desaturate in pp.
I'm going with the standard lens calibration for the 18-55 lens, since my Hoya IR72 filter fits that lens. David said I can always use that filter to reduce the effect of the Super Color if desired.
Can't wait to start playing with this!


http://kathycavallaro.smugmug.com/

Hi Kathy,

It is certainly not my intention to have you reconsider (as I said, the Super Color IR filter is very intriguing to me as well), but please mind the following:

>David said I can always use that filter to reduce the effect of the Super Color if desired.

Sure, because the filter in front of the lens will block everything below 720nm. As the Super Color IR filter in front of the image sensor will "only" block everything below 590nm, it has now become sort of, well... useless, as there are no wavelengths below 720nm reaching the sensor.

Be aware that with an IR filter in front of the lens, you are looking at very long exposure times (somewhere in the 15 to 30 secs region). This implies a few caveats:
- you will need to shoot from a tripod.
- moving subjects (people, animals, vehicles) will be blurry.
- your camera lightmeter only goes to 30secs, so you'll need an external lightmeter, or use Bulb mode and guestimate using the histogram, if you require exposures beyond that.

On the other hand, if you can photographically live with these drawbacks, you may have the best of both worlds!

Just my 2 cents...

Good luck, Peter

Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner. (Anonymus)
Look, I'm not an intellectual - I just take pictures. (Helmut Newton)

Visit my Nikonians gallery or my Flickr gallery.

Hi Peter,
Thanks again for your input. I sent my newly acquired D200 off for conversion today. After more careful consideration, I've decided to go with the Super Color. In my initial discussion with David he said I would not be subject to long exposures with the IR filter. I doubted this response and agree with you, because I can barely see any light through it. I based my decision on the photo examples, enjoyed the color and saturation. Hope I have something worthy to post in a few weeks.


http://kathycavallaro.smugmug.com/

Hi Kathy,

Terrific job, I think you made a good decision.
Good luck with your D200IR when you get it returned from LifePixel.

Looking forward to your results. A photo post maybe?
Also I'd like to know about your experiences with your D200IR with a Hoya IR72 on the 18-55. What about exposure times and such...

Happy shooting,
Peter

Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner. (Anonymus)
Look, I'm not an intellectual - I just take pictures. (Helmut Newton)

Visit my Nikonians gallery or my Flickr gallery.

The long exposure times associated with IR are related to the coatings on the low pass filter to prevent IR wavelengths from reaching the sensor. Light is light and absent a filter to block a portion of the spectrum, shutter speeds should be near normal.

The Super Color filter will permit a significant portion of the visible spectrum to pass through the filter - I believe it is more than any other conversion from LifePixel. This gives you red color detail that can be used in a channel swap for alternative colors or as additional detail for a black and white conversion.

While you could use a stronger filter on the front of your lens to create images with no visible light, AF will be difficult as the filters are near opaque. You will have to use the same process for focusing that is used on unconverted cameras - focus first and then mount the filter.

I think you have made a good decision and look forward to seeing some images.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

>The long exposure times associated with IR are related to the
>coatings on the low pass filter to prevent IR wavelengths from
>reaching the sensor. Light is light and absent a filter to
>block a portion of the spectrum, shutter speeds should be near
>normal.

I stand corrected and rightfully so.

Indeed I mixed up in my earlier post. What I wrote there is applicable only to an unconverted DSLR with an IR filter in front of the lens. The lens filter will only allow IR light to pass through, however the standard anti-alias filter in front of the sensor will try to block IR light, hence the long exposure times. With a converted DSLR things are different, as the anti-alias filter in front of the sensor is now replaced by a filter that will actually allow IR light to pass, restoring near to normal exposure times.

Eric, thanks a lot for making sense of my earlier mess.

Best regards, Peter

Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner. (Anonymus)
Look, I'm not an intellectual - I just take pictures. (Helmut Newton)

Visit my Nikonians gallery or my Flickr gallery.

No problem, Peter. Thanks for weighing in. This stuff can be complicated so it is always great to have a second set of eyes.

For those looking at this post, a filter on an unconverted DSLR is typically the way that most people first experience IR. That implies long exposure times and manual focus. After that, it can be a bit addicting.

Kathy - I'm looking forward to seeing your images. You've got a great eye and we are entering the heart of IR season in North America.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Peter and Eric,
Thanks guys for sharing your views and thoughts on this. It's been most helpful with my decision.
Eric you make a good point with this being addicting, that's why I wasn't satisfied being limited to long exposures.
Lifepixel received my camera today. I'm getting busy with ideas for subjects.
Appreciate your kind words!


http://kathycavallaro.smugmug.com/

I own several D200 cameras, one is converted to UVIR and the other two are backup (one possibly slated for 830nm IR). I wouldn't hesistate to pick up another D200 for the right low shutter count and of course - price.

The advantage of the D200 is that this model is really the last CCD Nikon model that could be used for UV. So if you are ever considering venturing into that area then go for the D200. Of course it also makes a great IR camera.

I purchased one of mine from a friend but the other two through Craigslist locally. Just check them out thoroughly and if possible take a laptop to check for hot pixels and focus issues, although I have not run into a hot pixel problem yet. One had focus issues (apparently from new) that the owner was unaware of because he was an AF user whereas I am mostly MF. I fixed it in a couple of minutes by removing the additional (unrequired) shim behind the focus screen.

The disadvantage of a new D90 is voiding the factory warranty.

Shane
http://www.beyondvisible.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Eric and Shane,
Really appreciate your responses! I found a D200 on Craigslist, less than 2 miles from my house. The gentlemen had four D200's. Two for his vacation home, and two for his home here. This body has less than 2000 shutter actuations, the sensor is clean.
Eric, I found your used camera checklist, it was so helpful! Everything checks out fine. I'm going to play with it for a while before sending it off to Lifepixels just to be sure.

Thanks again for all the help!
Kathy


http://kathycavallaro.smugmug.com/

2000 activations - wow - that's like new.

Best of luck with your conversion.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera