Are you a photography masochist?

[Roger Cole]

The Nightfox Cape is ~ $160 USD-- does not include headstrap. Uses AA batteries, will take rechargeables. I believe it's 720p.

Nightfox Swift is $199, higher res, but 850nm. with headstrap. Does not feature recording.

Nightfox Red is ~ $299-- includes headstrap, uses built-in rechargeable, and is 1920x1080p.

The Cape and the Red are 940nm, and both can record. The swift is kind of in between cost-wise. I went with the Red because... well... shiny!

All three require manual focus, and if you're planning on picking out sharp detail, they might not be the answer. After some testing in my planned darkroom, the IR emitters, even at low power, produce glare, so I found an inexpensive IR only flashlight that I'll mount on a stand to give me indirect lighting, and that works much better. The different levels of IR power basically control how far you can see-- they don't affect the brightness much, due to the system auto-adjusting.

I've finally got everything together, I'm hoping to try it out this weekend.

Thanks, I'll be very curious how it works out for you. Let us know!

 

[mshchem]

OP...cause auto don't work sometimes.

I've been playing with my old screw mount Leicas. Put in a roll of 400 black and white, a 35 or 28mm lens, preset focus, f8. Easier than any electric camera. Maybe not as high of a frame rate.
The guys that are press photogs still use a lot of these tricks today.

Pain, real pain is for a old guy like me to pick up a totally new d***tal system.

What else do I have to do?

 

[grat]

I need glasses, do you think these would work with specs or contacts??

I don't know-- I know I'll need glasses "soon", but haven't gotten there yet. One reviewer commented that they had to use reading glasses due to a lack of diopter adjustment.

 

[faberryman]

I've recently discovered that affordable digital IR goggles have come out that operate in the 940nm range. Even 850nm should be reasonably safe for most film, since HIE is long gone. While I'm primarily interested in being able to develop panchromatic film by inspection, the idea of being able to actually see what I'm doing in the dark appeals to me.

What factors motivated you to want to develop panchromatic film by inspection?

 

[grat]

What factors motivated you to want to develop panchromatic film by inspection?

Primarily, I have a limited number of 70 year old panchro plates, and I'd like to sacrifice as few as possible finding the right development time.

 

[VinceInMT]

Perhaps what we are describing is “benign masochism” which is explained here:

“Benign masochism” motivates common strange behaviors​

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't know-- I know I'll need glasses "soon", but haven't gotten there yet. One reviewer commented that they had to use reading glasses due to a lack of diopter adjustment.

A lifelong myope I can see fine without my glasses up close, IF I get close ENOUGH. People who aren't myopes sometimes look at me weirdly when I prop my glasses on my forehead to read tiny print, and my sister even argued about it, "you need bifocals!" "These ARE progressives." "Then you need new ones!" "No, I assuredly do not. My eye doc even told me 'we'll never be able to do as well for you up close as God gave you.' I see the equivalent of close up 20/20 with them, but far BETTER than that without them." It's not perfect, because my right and left eye don't get perfect focus at the same point (about 6" for my left eye, about 9" for my right) so any binocular vision is a compromise but if I need to, for example, read tiny print on a label, the glasses get propped on my forehead.

OTOH at a distance beyond a foot or so I'm lucky to be able to see to get out the danged door without bumping into it.

I'm hoping they would work, at least "well enough." For a lot of darkroom work precise focus and detail is not needed. I'm not particularly interested in developing pan film by inspection but even after decades of doing it off and on I still run into occasional problems with film reels, and especially sheets in my 2509n reels. (I never did master the steel reels well enough to use them, ruined way too much film. Good plastic ones are FAR easier for me. And yes, I tried.)

 

[grat]

Then you should be OK-- keep in mind, unlike optical systems, this is an LCD mounted fairly close to your eyes, and the focal distance is to the LCD plane, not to the objects being displayed.

Some modern cars have LCD displays in the rear view mirror-- the Chevy Bolt, in particular, let's you flip between the two modes (reflective and LCD display). Drivers discovered that they had to refocus for the LCD, but not for the mirror.

Another reason to grumble about electronic viewfinders, but that's not for this thread.

 

[albada]

A lifelong myope I can see fine without my glasses up close, IF I get close ENOUGH. People who aren't myopes sometimes look at me weirdly when I prop my glasses on my forehead to read tiny print, and my sister even argued about it, "you need bifocals!" "These ARE progressives." "Then you need new ones!" "No, I assuredly do not. My eye doc even told me 'we'll never be able to do as well for you up close as God gave you.'

Your eyes have built-in macro lenses. Make us jealous!

 

[Roger Cole]

Your eyes have built-in macro lenses. Make us jealous!

Not much to be jealous of - I'm helpless without my glasses. Most people who only need them for reading can get by just fine walking around or even driving without them.