Subject: EOS D60/vegetation study using digital IR Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:52:04 +0800 From: To: Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl Hello photographers, I am a student from Curtin Univeristy of Technology in Perth, W.A. I am currently spending my vacation with CSIRO (the Australian Government's research institution) where I am working on a project aiming to use infrared digital photography to determine leaf area index of native Australian vegetation understorey. I would like to ask your advice. I am using a Cannon EOS D60 camera with a Hoya R72 filter and was wondering if you could please give me some advice on how to obtain usable infrared images. I am currently trying to manipulate shutter speed and aperture to obtain an image but seem only to get blank images. Does the sensor on the Does the D60 have an IR filter built in that will prevent it being used for this purpose? If not, do you have any suggestions as to why I am unable to produce usable images? Any advice from others who have used infrared photography in vegetation = studies would be much appreciated. Thank you very much for your time, it is very much appreciated. Kieran Coupe Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:53:49 +0100 From: Eckhard Stephan To: infrared@a1.nl Subject: Re: EOS D60/vegetation study using digital IR Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl *SNIP* > > I am using a Cannon EOS D60 camera with a Hoya R72 filter and was > > wondering if you could please give me some advice on how to obtain > > usable infrared images. I am currently trying to manipulate shutter > > speed and aperture to obtain an image but seem only to get blank > > images. Does the sensor on the Does the D60 have an IR filter built in > > that will prevent it being used for this purpose? If not, do you have > > any suggestions as to why I am unable to produce usable images? *SNIP* I'm afraid you won't have much luck using a D60 for IR. I'm not sure whether the camera has an IR blocking filter. But I do know that I never managed to get usable IR pics with my D60. :-( Probably the poor Ir performance of the D60 is due to its CMOS sensor. While CCD sensors are known to be sensitive far into the IR range (which makes an IR blocking filter necessary to avoid colour shifts in non-IR photography), CMOS sensors have a sensitivity range similar to that of the human eye. They can't see IR. All the best, Eckhard -- |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>| | Eckhard Stephan | | Refrath / Cologne (Germany) | | eckhard.stephan@web.de | | http://www.seelensalz.de | |<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<><<<<<<<<| Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:58:03 +0100 From: Dieter Henkel To: infrared@a1.nl Subject: Re[2]: EOS D60/vegetation study using digital IR Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl Hello Eckhard, Monday, January 12, 2004, 10:53:49 AM, you wrote: ES> I'm afraid you won't have much luck using a D60 for IR. I'm not sure ES> whether the camera has an IR blocking filter. But I do know that I never ES> managed to get usable IR pics with my D60. :-( ES> Probably the poor Ir performance of the D60 is due to its CMOS sensor. ES> While CCD sensors are known to be sensitive far into the IR range (which ES> makes an IR blocking filter necessary to avoid colour shifts in non-IR ES> photography), CMOS sensors have a sensitivity range similar to that of ES> the human eye. They can't see IR. This is not generelly true. The EOS 10D performs quite good in the IR departement. I have conducted a test together with a friend and his 10D. Examples: http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/529084 http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/529080 Description in English: http://offstone.on2web.com/photo/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3677 My friend has reported bad results with his old D60, though. -- Best regards, Dieter From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: infrared@a1.nl Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:31:10 +0100 Subject: Re: EOS D60/vegetation study using digital IR Cc: eos@a1.nl Reply-To: eos@a1.nl On 12 Jan 2004 at 10:53, Eckhard Stephan wrote: > *SNIP* > > > > I am using a Cannon EOS D60 camera with a Hoya R72 filter and was > > > wondering if you could please give me some advice on how to obtain > > > usable infrared images. I am currently trying to manipulate > > > shutter speed and aperture to obtain an image but seem only to get > > > blank images. Does the sensor on the Does the D60 have an IR > > > filter built in that will prevent it being used for this purpose? > > > If not, do you have any suggestions as to why I am unable to > > > produce usable images? > > *SNIP* > > I'm afraid you won't have much luck using a D60 for IR. I'm not sure > whether the camera has an IR blocking filter. But I do know that I > never managed to get usable IR pics with my D60. :-( Probably the poor > Ir performance of the D60 is due to its CMOS sensor. While CCD sensors > are known to be sensitive far into the IR range (which makes an IR > blocking filter necessary to avoid colour shifts in non-IR > photography), CMOS sensors have a sensitivity range similar to that of > the human eye. They can't see IR. Btw, does anyone know what was in the Canon/Kodak DCS3, released in 1994? This CMOS-stuff only became available with the EOS D30, right? And/or: what does the Kodak DCS 520/560 (aka Canon D2000) and EOS 1D(s) use? (ignoring the possible problem of IR-block filters) (I do get some kind of purple/reddish image on my DCS3, trying a whole bunch of IR-pass, UV-pass and (IR+UV)-block filters (in every imaginable permutation), but I am still not sure whether I see UV or IR....8-)) (it's not a clean image anyway) Note that the Canon/Kodak DCS3ir was the *only* dedicated IR-camera ever (Nikon/Kodak had 2 generations (one earlier), Canon/Kodak only one). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Randy Roy" To: Subject: Re: EOS D60/vegetation study using digital IR Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:45:29 -0500 Reply-To: eos@a1.nl There is an article in the Feb. issue of Outdoor Photographer about a guy that will convert a D30 or D60 so it can be used for IR photography (cost $350). He removes the IR cut-off filter and installs a permanent 87B IR filter in the camera. The only kicker is that it is now an "IR only" camera. My thinking is that maybe you could have him remove the cut-off filter only, and you use your own screw-on IR filter(s) on your lens(es). There is a web site, but I don't know if posting URL's is allowed here. Randy From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: eos@a1.nl Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:38:09 +0100 Subject: EOS Re: D60/vegetation study using digital IR Cc: infrared@a1.nl Reply-To: eos@a1.nl On 13 Jan 2004 at 16:45, Randy Roy wrote: > There is an article in the Feb. issue of Outdoor Photographer about a > guy that will convert a D30 or D60 so it can be used for IR > photography (cost $350). He removes the IR cut-off filter and > installs a permanent 87B IR filter in the camera. The only kicker is > that it is now an "IR only" camera. > > My thinking is that maybe you could have him remove the cut-off filter > only, and you use your own screw-on IR filter(s) on your lens(es). > > There is a web site, but I don't know if posting URL's is allowed > here. Sure it is, don't tease us like that....;)) Btw, mounting quasi-permanent filters inside the camera, behind the mirror, is quite common for analog IR-photographers; up to 0.5mm thick filters fit nicely between the film rails (allowing a sturdy yet flexible quality of filter)....:)) http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/btfr_fil.htm -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Randy Roy" To: Subject: Re: EOS Re: D60/vegetation study using digital IR Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:43:59 -0500 Reply-To: eos@a1.nl Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: > On 13 Jan 2004 at 16:45, Randy Roy wrote: > >> There is an article in the Feb. issue of Outdoor Photographer about a >> guy that will convert a D30 or D60 so it can be used for IR >> photography (cost $350). He removes the IR cut-off filter and >> installs a permanent 87B IR filter in the camera. The only kicker is >> that it is now an "IR only" camera. >> >> My thinking is that maybe you could have him remove the cut-off >> filter only, and you use your own screw-on IR filter(s) on your >> lens(es). >> >> There is a web site, but I don't know if posting URL's is allowed >> here. > > Sure it is, don't tease us like that....;)) The web site is www.irdigital.net Randy From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: eos@a1.nl Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:09:19 +0100 Subject: EOS Re: D60/vegetation study using digital IR Cc: infrared@a1.nl Reply-To: eos@a1.nl On 14 Jan 2004 at 0:38, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: > On 13 Jan 2004 at 16:45, Randy Roy wrote: > > > There is an article in the Feb. issue of Outdoor Photographer about > > a guy that will convert a D30 or D60 so it can be used for IR > > photography (cost $350). He removes the IR cut-off filter and > > installs a permanent 87B IR filter in the camera. The only kicker > > is that it is now an "IR only" camera. > > > > My thinking is that maybe you could have him remove the cut-off > > filter only, and you use your own screw-on IR filter(s) on your > > lens(es). > > > > There is a web site, but I don't know if posting URL's is allowed > > here. > > Sure it is, don't tease us like that....;)) > > Btw, mounting quasi-permanent filters inside the camera, behind the > mirror, is quite common for analog IR-photographers; up to 0.5mm thick > filters fit nicely between the film rails (allowing a sturdy yet > flexible quality of filter)....:)) > > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/btfr_fil.htm Btw, after seeing the typical shutterspeeds of the two sample images (different filter (#87/b&w vs #89B/color), same exposure index), I realised that such a filter *inside* the camera is only half as relevant for a digicam compared to an analog camera....with 2s shutterspeed, you need a tripod anyway....and given a tripod, it's less problematic to use opaque filters in front of the camera (in particular sliding filters a la Cokin). Also: it seems those older dedicated-IR camera's (like DCS3ir) at least had the benefit of a sufficient exposure index (400-1600 ASA IIRC)....otherwise they could never been used for aerial photography. Therefore: the claim that *current* digicam's make IR-film redundant is rubbish....they once did, but do not any longer....;)) (couldn't use a digicam on skiing trips (no tripod) either) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: eos@a1.nl Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:31:24 +0100 Subject: EOS Re: D60/vegetation study using digital IR Cc: infrared@a1.nl, aerialpro@lists.tdl.com Reply-To: eos@a1.nl On 14 Jan 2004 at 21:09, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: > > Btw, mounting quasi-permanent filters inside the camera, behind the > > mirror, is quite common for analog IR-photographers; up to 0.5mm > > thick filters fit nicely between the film rails (allowing a sturdy > > yet flexible quality of filter)....:)) > > > > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/btfr_fil.htm > > Btw, after seeing the typical shutterspeeds of the two sample images > (different filter (#87/b&w vs #89B/color), same exposure index), I > realised that such a filter *inside* the camera is only half as > relevant for a digicam compared to an analog camera....with 2s > shutterspeed, you need a tripod anyway....and given a tripod, it's > less problematic to use opaque filters in front of the camera (in > particular sliding filters a la Cokin). > > Also: it seems those older dedicated-IR camera's (like DCS3ir) at > least had the benefit of a sufficient exposure index (400-1600 ASA > IIRC)....otherwise they could never been used for aerial photography. > > Therefore: the claim that *current* digicam's make IR-film redundant > is rubbish....they once did, but do not any longer....;)) (couldn't > use a digicam on skiing trips (no tripod) either) Overlooked the rather interesting exposure spec's on http://www.irdigital.net/ : 200ASA, 1/60s@f11 (hmm....that's conflicting, with 200ASA SunnySixteen says 1/200s@f16, or almost 1/60s@f22 cq a true 1/400@f11). Which means that regardless of whether D30 or D60 *can* record IR, there is still a very strong IR-block filter inside....perhaps the difference beteen D30 and D60 is in that filter, or in the chip.... Let's CC this to the Aerial Photography Mailinglist too, perhaps anyone there has experience with modifying current (high-end) consumer-digicam's this way? Not just IR, but high-speed IR? Fit for aerial use? -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]