IR capability

[luxikon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As far as i can see the M9 manual doesn't specify the camera's infrared capability.

 

Has anybody tested it yet?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gravastar]

Yes, it's much less sensitve than the M8. Also the responses of the three color channels is different with only the red channel having any useable sensitivity. That means you can't do false color manipulations (aka Ektachrome EIR) like you can with the M8. I'm keeping my M8 not only as a backup but also as an IR camera. In conclusion the M9 is not a very practical IR camera...... having said that ....

 

Attached image taken with 715nm filter, M9.

[gvaliquette]

In conclusion the M9 is not a very practical IR camera...... having said that ....

 

Attached image taken with 715nm filter, M9.

 

Exposure parameters? (aperture and exposure time?)

 

Thanks. Guy

[gravastar]

Exposure parameters? (aperture and exposure time?)

 

Thanks. Guy

There was a reason for not quoting that - I'm not sure of the aperture. The EXIF data indicates f/23 which is wrong. That's because the camera calculates the aperture from the ratio of light incident on the circular sensor window at the front of the camera to that falling on the main 24x36mm image sensor. As soon as you add filters the calculation is incorrect.

 

I think the apeture was f/8 and the rest of the data is ISO 160, 4 seconds, 28mm Summicron, 715nm B+W filter. Bright sunny conditions mid morning. The image is a small part of a 3 x 3 frame pano.

 

Bob.

[DFV]

Yes, IR and the M9 is a difficult task. Maybe the thing I miss most about my M8.2...

 

Few people do IR and too many complained about the M8's IR filtering (or lack of...) capabilities. The equation is simple, ad an IR filter and make most people happy. For me it was not really a problem since I protect my lenses with regular UV glass so changing them for the UV/Ir to correct the problem was not really an issue for me. Too bad...

 

This reminds me that I have an old Sony with a Zeiss zoom (don't even recall the model:confused:) that physically added or removed the IR filter over the sensor, where the hell is that thing...

[boilerdoc]

With the M8 I could hand hold while shooting IR photos. Using the 073 filter and the Tri Elmar and ISO 320 it was easy to shoot at 1/30 at f8 in full sunlight!

Steve

[exile]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree that my M8 was a far better IR camera than the M9. It really was a pleasure to shoot IR handheld with the M8 in harsh midday sun that wasn't great for much else. That is the only thing I miss about my M8. I have Lightroom presets that try to simulate an "IR look", but they aren't the same as a genuine IR shot, obviously.

 

Having said that, the M9 can still take IR images, as posted above. I particularly use it near water because the required long exposure really smoothes the surface, and the water generally really stands out compared to vegetation. I always think that IR shots make skies much more interesting also. Kind of like an ultra-ploarising filter effect. You can still do all of this with the M9, but you do need a much much longer exposure and therefore a stationary/secure camera. As an exterme example, with the M8 I could shoot a toddler up close with the 15/4.5 heliar as he moved through overgrown vegetation, and I got some pretty surreal ghostly images I can tell you! No chance of that with the M9.