Guest Essemmlee Posted November 19, 2012 Share #1 Posted November 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is there any knowledge here about the IR capabilities of the MM? The M8 was first class; the M9 not so good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Hi Guest Essemmlee, Take a look here Infrared on MM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Walt Calahan Posted November 19, 2012 Share #2 Posted November 19, 2012 The M8 is great because the imaging chip does not have much of an Infrared filter over top of it (if any at all - can't remember the exact details). This cause color shifts in non-Infrared images, and thus why M8 users need to place an Infrared blocking filter over their lens. Leica fixed this problem in the M8-2, as well as the M9. I suspect the MM has the same filter. If it does, the only want to make the camera a strong Infrared recorder is to have the Infrared blocking filter removed. Not advised if you want to shoot in the visible light spectrum. Here's a company that converts digital cameras into Infrared recorders. LifePixel Digital Infrared Photography IR Conversion, Modification & Scratched Sensor Repair Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 19, 2012 Share #3 Posted November 19, 2012 Walt, I wasn't aware that Leica fixed the IR issue in the M8.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 19, 2012 Share #4 Posted November 19, 2012 The IR absorption filter on the M8/M8.2 is 0.50 mm thick, on the M9 0.75 mm. The M8 has about 50% IR reduction, the M9 about 80%. I dont know which filter is used on the MM, but I would bet the 0.75. Which means IR sensitivity is about the same as on the M9, but due to the higher ISO rating of the sensor one should be able to get decent IR out of it. Interesting to experiment. One other thing to try out as the sun appears sometime in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted November 19, 2012 Share #5 Posted November 19, 2012 Walt, I wasn't aware that Leica fixed the IR issue in the M8.2. They didn’t. There is no difference between the M8 and M8.2 in that respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 19, 2012 Share #6 Posted November 19, 2012 Is there any knowledge here about the IR capabilities of the MM? The M8 was first class; the M9 not so good. As you live in the UK, should you wish to investigate IR conversion of an old digital camera (DSLRs are the main candidates) Norfolk Camera Centre in East Dereham have a good reputation of such a modification. Much was written about them some time ago in British photo magazines. I have only used them for conventional servicing. But I doubt you would want to convert a digital M camera. I am enjoying exploring IR in my M8, while still retaining its conventional full colour capture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 19, 2012 Share #7 Posted November 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The MM is not suitable for IR. I just tried a 093 filter; it measured an exposure OK 1/15th @ 2.8 @ ISO 10.000, but the image displayed zilch - nothing. I then tried flash, but the same non-result. The sensor appears to be 100% insensitive to IR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay B Posted November 20, 2012 Share #8 Posted November 20, 2012 Steve Huff: IR filters I bought one of these out of curiosity. Here is the description of what it should do: The B+W 46mm IR Dark Red (092) Filter is used for infrared photography with digital cameras and specialized infrared films. This nearly opaque filter blocks all visible light up to 650nm, lets 50% of radiation pass between 650 and 700nm, and more than 90% of radiation pass between 730 and 2000nm. Infrared film sensitivity is rarely greater than 1000nm, so this filter essentially allows most perceivable infrared radiation to be transmitted. Due to the nature of infrared photography, the filter factor for this filter is highly variable and depends largely on your film sensitivity and lighting conditions. This was shot with a B+W IR-695 filter. I wanted to experiment a bit with one. This one was at f/1.4 with the 35 Summilux FLE. Photo by Steve Huff http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/L9810527-680x435.jpg The Leica Monochrom Review Part 2: Low light, High ISO and Filters | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2012 Share #9 Posted November 20, 2012 Yes, that is a 092 filter which is a deep red filter that will transmit visible light. According to the manufacturer the visible red still contributes significantly to the exposure. It is my preferred IR filter on the M8, as it allows easy handheld IR at relatively low ISO. I think Steve recorded deep red, not IR. I will try that next. In this case I used a 093 filter which only transmits IR so there was no contamination by visible red light. Anyway, I used incandescent (halogen) light and flash for my experiment. I need to repeat it in sunlight, but we won't be seeing the sun this fortnight, according to the weather forecast. http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/fotofilter/infrarotfilter.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Calahan Posted November 20, 2012 Share #10 Posted November 20, 2012 Sorry guys if I misspoke about the M8.2. Since I don't own one, I was going with what a friend of mine who owned both the M8 and the M8.2 said to me. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I do remember him telling me the M8.2 fix the IR problem. Walt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Essemmlee Posted November 20, 2012 Share #11 Posted November 20, 2012 Thanks to all. Back to the M8 and B & W 720nm filter. Not a bad combination that gives provides deep blacks and bright whites. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2012 Share #12 Posted November 20, 2012 Next test: Somewhat watery sunlight: B+W 092 filter - it will produce a properly exposed image @ ISO 10.000, 1/125th, f 8.0, B+W 093 filter - it will produce a black frame at the same settings. A more-or less properly exposed frame takes 10.000, 1/15, f2.8 and looks a bit like an Albumin print. Conclusion: The Monochrom will record red light down to IR but is virtually insensitive to longer wavelength IR. The amount transmitted is too small for practical photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 20, 2012 Share #13 Posted November 20, 2012 The M Monochrom is not suitable for IR. Oh, it is. I just tried a 093 filter ... The B+W 093 filter simply is way too dense. Try a Wratten #88A (Schott RG 715), this will give a nice infra-red effect and will be hand-holdable in the sunshine (albeit at ISO 5000/38° - ISO 10000/41° only). The filter Wratten #89B (Schott RG 695) will allow faster shutter speeds at lower ISO but transmits quite some deep red alongside the infra-red, so the pictoral IR effect will be mild only. The sensor appears to be 100 % insensitive to IR. Not true. The M Monochrom's sensitivity to infra-red is pretty low and it doesn't reach too far up the IR spectrum—definitely lower than the M8 and much lower than Kodak Highspeed IR film—but it still is not unusable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2012 Share #14 Posted November 20, 2012 If you had read my post right above yours... I don't think density has much to do with it - the light transmission curve is more relevant. From the short experiment I did I do not think that the 092 filter gives a very impressive IR effect. More like a regular strong red filter. The M8 is far more effective. As far as I am concerned the MM may record some shorter wave length IR and deep red, but not enough to make it a sensible choice for this type of photography. Use a dedicated camera or an M8. Or even an RD1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 20, 2012 Share #15 Posted November 20, 2012 If you had read my post right above yours ... If you had read my post properly ... From the short experiment I did I do not think that the 092 filter gives a very impressive IR effect. Sure. So better stop using the B+W 092 filter and start using a better-suited one. The M Monochrom has only a narrow spectral window usable for IR so the filter must match it perfectly. The B+W 092 is too weak, the B+W 093 too strong. Fortunately, there are more IR filters to choose from, albeit not by B+W. In my short test, the RG 715 appeared about right. As far as I am concerned the M Monochrom may record some shorter wave length IR and deep red, but not enough to make it a sensible choice for this type of photography. It sure isn't perfect due to the low sensitivity ... but I am still not convinced it wasn't worth pursueing. Maybe the M Monochrom's tonality compensates for the narrow spectral window if only the filter was carefully chosen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2012 Share #16 Posted November 20, 2012 715 has nearly the same transmission curve as B+W 099, which means the cut-off is between yellow and orange.So it will not give much of an IR effect. I have one at home. It should be approximately the same as a regular orange filter. If you mean Heliopan 5715, that is the same as Wratten 88A. That cuts off at 750 nm, which is somewhere between B + W 092 and 093. Sorry, I found Heliopan RG 715, cutoff 680. That is nearly the same as the 092. The best thing to have would be the Leica response curve of the sensor. Does anybody have it? That would enable us to find the optimum filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted November 20, 2012 Share #17 Posted November 20, 2012 While I haven’t tried it myself I wonder why the M Momochrom would be insensitive to IR. Its IR absorption filter is similar to that of the M9 and the only widely used cameras that are virtually insensitive to IR are the Canon EOS models – these have both an absorption filter and a dichroic filter. But then, I wouldn’t recommend a filter cutting out anything shorter than 830 nm as the B+W 093 does. 730 or 780 nm would be preferrable for capturing most of the near infrared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2012 Share #18 Posted November 20, 2012 I have been wondering about that too. Could it be that the replacement glass for the Bayer filter (if it has that) has IR absorbing properties? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 20, 2012 Share #19 Posted November 20, 2012 I agree Michael. 093 is too strong, 092 too weak, so 88A should be the best. However, as the M8 is clearly much better I will not be spending the money to get one. @ 01af - I find the remark "stop using" slightly ridiculous when trying out different filters. If you can suggest a better way of finding out whether the MM records far IR, please do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 20, 2012 Share #20 Posted November 20, 2012 715 has nearly the same transmission curve as B+W 099, which means the cut-off is between yellow and orange.So it will not give much of an IR effect. I have one at home. It should be approximately the same as a regular orange filter. If you mean Heliopan 5715, that is the same as Wratten 88A. That cuts off at 750 nm, which is somewhere between B+W 092 and 093. Sorry, I found Heliopan RG 715, cutoff 680. That is nearly the same as the 092. The best thing to have ... I think the best thing would be to get your facts sorted out. All the other M Monochrom owners—don't let jaapv's premature disappraisal (is that a word?) keep you from doing your own experiments with IR filters on the M Monochrom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.