Favorite Camera for IR Film ?

[klop]

I have only shot IR film in 2 cameras, Aries 35 III and Hasselblad 500 c/m. I like the results have been getting with both using D-76 1:1...... Still learning though......
:munch:

 

[DWThomas]

Out of what I have, I enjoy using my Yashica Mat 124G. Using a TLR allows the opaque filter to stay on the taking lens while the composition and focus proceeds unfettered through the viewing lens (except for some ghosting from my filter kludge). I came up with a lot of plumbing to adapt an already owned 89B filter to Bay-1, but it works.

Some day it might be cool to get a 720nm filter in Bay-1 or adapt to a modest size threaded filter. The typically high cost of IR filters and my infrequent use of IR has held me in check.

My first IR outing used my Bronica SQ-A and I was fearing I would wear out the filter threads!

 

[Sirius Glass]

If HIE were still made then I would have some.

 

[bsdunek]

I use my Mamiya Super 23 for 120 and my Yashica GSN for 35mm. Having the rangefinder eliminates having to remove the IR filter to compose & focus. A TLR would also be good as DWThomas says.

 

[Alex Muir]

I use a Rolleicord Vb with the Rollei IR filter. Advantages as pointed out by DWThomas. I found a Bay 1 to 49mm converter on eBay which would allow use of an R72 in that size as an option to the Rollei filter. I use a Cokin P holder on my Bronicas with the Cokin 007 IR filter. For 35mm I use a Hoya R72 on a drilled out OpTech flip open lens cap. This works with 28mm and anything longer. It vignettes with 24mm. It is a 52mm thread which fits a lot of Nikon lenses.
Alex.

 

[ntenny]

TLRs might have been invented for IR film. I was lucky enough to pick up a Rollei-Infrarot in Bay I, so I mostly use my 'cord for IR nowadays, but in the last analysis any good TLR is a good IR camera. Bay Whatever to 49mm adapters are common and usually don't obstruct the viewing lens.

-NT

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I use my Canon FTb because of the quick up spool.

Jeff

 

[polyglot]

Given the long exposure times and typical use for landscapes, a 4x5 field camera is my favourite way of shooting IR.

TLRs are easy, but again given the slow, tripod-mounted nature of IR exposures, a good MF SLR is just as good an option.

 

[Mackinaw]

I have a few rolls of HIE left. I usually use a 89B filter (opaque to visible light) when I shoot this film so I always use a rangefinder, usually my Canonet QL-1.7 or a Canon 7.

Jim B.

 

[MattKing]

Mamiya C330 with either a 65mm or 135mm lens.

I have a step-up ring that allows me to use the same 49mm 720nm filter with both lenses, a Paramender 3 head when I want to work close up, and both prism and waist-level finders.

 

[cliveh]

I don't understand why you would have a favourite camera for IR film. Surely it makes no difference.

 

[klop]

I don't understand why you would have a favourite camera for IR film. Surely it makes no difference.

Please explain?

 

[cliveh]

Please explain?

Well providing you have the focus setting adjustment for IR on the focus ring, I can't see why the camera would make a difference.

 

[pdeeh]

Let us assume that one does not have the skill to estimate exposure accurately by eye, nor own an exposure meter ... in which case, a rangefinder with through-the-lens metering (say, an M6 or one of the Bessa R*a or R*m) will make life much easier for composing and accurately exposing the film. An SLR fitted with an opaque or all but opaque filter however is is much less convenient, and any exposure data in the viewfinder (unless illuminated) will be all but invisible.

Shootingon on a tripod might be one riposte to my points, but of course not everyone likes or wishes to use a tripod.

 

[klop]

Well providing you have the focus setting adjustment for IR on the focus ring, I can't see why the camera would make a difference.

I am sure that most photographer types like myself have or have more than one camera, and out of those, a favorite or two, for what ever the reasons may be, are and or have been preferred.

 

[MattKing]

I don't understand why you would have a favourite camera for IR film. Surely it makes no difference.

The useful visible light blocking/IR transmitting filters are essentially opaque. If you put one on an SLR, you won't be able to see to compose or focus, so using such a camera forces you to constantly mount and un-mount an opaque filter.

Exposures with IR filters are typically long, so cameras well suited to low vibration use are good.

Some cameras have bellows that are IR transparent, so are therefore poor choices.

 

[cliveh]

I am sure that most photographer types like myself have or have more than one camera, and out of those, a favorite or two, for what ever the reasons may be, are and or have been preferred.

Yes, I understand that, but why a camera preference when using IR film?

 

[cliveh]

The useful visible light blocking/IR transmitting filters are essentially opaque. If you put one on an SLR, you won't be able to see to compose or focus, so using such a camera forces you to constantly mount and un-mount an opaque filter.

Exposures with IR filters are typically long, so cameras well suited to low vibration use are good.

Some cameras have bellows that are IR transparent, so are therefore poor choices.

Yes, but don't you use a tripod and compose before you put the filter on?

 

[pdeeh]

It's almost as if I didn't bother to post ...

 

[MattKing]

Well providing you have the focus setting adjustment for IR on the focus ring, I can't see why the camera would make a difference.

The "IR" focus setting adjustment on lenses is of little use with the currently available near-IR films, because the wavelengths of light that those films are sensitive to are so close to visible light.

It was different for Kodak HIE.

 

[klop]

Yes, I understand that, but why a camera preference when using IR film?

For what ever reason may be.....

 

[cliveh]

Let us assume that one does not have the skill to estimate exposure accurately by eye, nor own an exposure meter ... in which case, a rangefinder with through-the-lens metering (say, an M6 or one of the Bessa R*a or R*m) will make life much easier for composing and accurately exposing the film. An SLR fitted with an opaque or all but opaque filter however is is much less convenient, and any exposure data in the viewfinder (unless illuminated) will be all but invisible.

Shootingon on a tripod might be one riposte to my points, but of course not everyone likes or wishes to use a tripod.

How does an exposure meter estimate for IR?

 

[pdeeh]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse clive.

 

[klop]

How does an exposure meter estimate for IR?

Meter reading minus 4 stops in speed for me...

 

[cliveh]

Meter reading minus 4 stops in speed for me...

A standard light meter has no way of telling the IR light on the subject.