M11 Infrared Sensitivity

[J S H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here are 2 shots from just before sunset with the M11. Same angle and taken approximately 1.5 minutes apart. The first shot was with the Voigtlander 35 2.5 Color Skopar and Kolari Vision 720 IR filter. ISO 64, 24 seconds at F8.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[J S H]

Voigtlander 35 2.5 Color Skopar, F8 at ISO 64.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

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

[hmzimelka]

M11 with Ultron 28mm ASPH II, with 715nm IR filter

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[J S H]

 

8 hours ago, hmzimelka said:

M11 with Ultron 28mm ASPH II, with 715nm IR filter

How long was your exposure there? Doesn't look like there was much Infrared light available. 

[NightPix]

On 3/23/2023 at 11:32 PM, J S H said:

Yes, it can really be tough to find the right combo when you are fighting multiple issues. M mount wides on Sony bodies is one hurdle and when you bring IR into the mix (especially 850, which is very demanding of lenses), there are many more possibilities for things to go south. You may be on the right track with the IR filter on the Q2M. I figured out, after some correspondence on another thread, that the M10M has a much weaker IR blocking filter than the M11, so it might be that the Q2M to be constructed similarly. Unfortunately, I have zero experience with any of the Q cameras. Hot spotting is a different potential issue, but you won't know until you try.

Please let us know how it goes. It may work perfectly...if not, I might be able to help out. The one thing I would say preemptively, is that 850nm is a very restrictive IR filter and may necessitate long exposure times.  Also, if you see hot spotting, you may be able to reduce the problems with a 720 or 780 filter, while still getting the results you desire.

I don't want to get the conversation too far off of the M11 (which I don't yet own) but I'll give a brief update on what I found with the Q2M. I have used both the 720 and 850 filters on the Q2M and they both work quite well with 1 sec (ISO 2500, but cleaned up well) and 10 sec (ISO 250) exposures. There is a noticeable difference between 720 and 850 with reds and browns noticeable darker at 720 on the Q2M (to be expected). On a converted color sensor (with much shorter exposure times and lower ISO) an 850 filter basically renders a B&W image, and is easy to manage in post. Personally, I prefer the the B&W look (even on converted color sensors). Filters much lower (eg 650) require too much Photoshop time with channel swapping, etc. for my preference. I am, however, intrigued by the Kolari IR Chrome filter (aerochrome look) and have ordered one to play with. I'm imaging a snow covered mountain vista with beautiful red pines dotting the landscape under a Colorado blue sky. Maybe a nice elk in the foreground...

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, NightPix said:

I don't want to get the conversation too far off of the M11 (which I don't yet own) but I'll give a brief update on what I found with the Q2M. I have used both the 720 and 850 filters on the Q2M and they both work quite well with 1 sec (ISO 2500, but cleaned up well) and 10 sec (ISO 250) exposures. There is a noticeable difference between 720 and 850 with reds and browns noticeable darker at 720 on the Q2M (to be expected). On a converted color sensor (with much shorter exposure times and lower ISO) an 850 filter basically renders a B&W image, and is easy to manage in post. Personally, I prefer the the B&W look (even on converted color sensors). Filters much lower (eg 650) require too much Photoshop time with channel swapping, etc. for my preference. I am, however, intrigued by the Kolari IR Chrome filter (aerochrome look) and have ordered one to play with. I'm imaging a snow covered mountain vista with beautiful red pines dotting the landscape under a Colorado blue sky. Maybe a nice elk in the foreground...

You're not seeing any hot spots? What apertures are you using? When I had a Q2M, I was getting a hot spot in the center of the frame.

[NightPix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, hdmesa said:

You're not seeing any hot spots? What apertures are you using? When I had a Q2M, I was getting a hot spot in the center of the frame.

I generally use the Q2M wide open (f/1.7 or sometimes f/2.0) to keep exposure times as short as possible. I haven't experienced any hot spot issues with the Q2M, but on other cameras/lenses I have noticed that hot spots really start to show up at apertures above about f/4. In general, hot spots are less of an issue with filters around 720-750, and worse with filters like 850 nm. Here's a couple of test shots from this weekend: both were f/1.7, 10 sec, ISO 250. The first one is with a 720 nm filter, the second was with an 850 nm filter. Motion is evident because of the long exposure and some wind. You can see from the clouds that the sun was uncooperative.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 27, 2023 by NightPix

[hmzimelka]

14 hours ago, J S H said:

 

How long was your exposure there? Doesn't look like there was much Infrared light available. 

This was 3 seconds. I was getting clipped reds at around 8sec. It was fairly bright at 2pm, unlike what the image suggests.

[J S H]

14 hours ago, hmzimelka said:

This was 3 seconds. I was getting clipped reds at around 8sec. It was fairly bright at 2pm, unlike what the image suggests.

Everyone uses a different approach to evaluate proper exposure while shooting. In my experience, WB factors greatly into exposure once you get above 700nm or so. AWB will throw off your exposure under most conditions. If you create a user profile with a manual WB of 2200K and the BW Nat Monochrome film profile, that should help you better evaluate exposure when you are shooting. Import into LR or C1 with WB as shot and you should have a good starting point. You may already be using that approach, but it's good info if you are still trying to dial in shooting and processing. Also, with a less restrictive filter like the one you are using, you will still have quite a bit of control with the B&W mix. It's good to try different settings of both WB and tint. You'll be surprised how much difference just a small adjustment will give you, especially with tint. 

[hmzimelka]

18 hours ago, J S H said:

Everyone uses a different approach to evaluate proper exposure while shooting. In my experience, WB factors greatly into exposure once you get above 700nm or so. AWB will throw off your exposure under most conditions. If you create a user profile with a manual WB of 2200K and the BW Nat Monochrome film profile, that should help you better evaluate exposure when you are shooting. Import into LR or C1 with WB as shot and you should have a good starting point. You may already be using that approach, but it's good info if you are still trying to dial in shooting and processing. Also, with a less restrictive filter like the one you are using, you will still have quite a bit of control with the B&W mix. It's good to try different settings of both WB and tint. You'll be surprised how much difference just a small adjustment will give you, especially with tint. 

Thanks. I have my own custom WB and Adobe DCP profile for IR, and only there I determine if there is clipping. 

[J S H]

37 minutes ago, hmzimelka said:

Thanks. I have my own custom WB and Adobe DCP profile for IR, and only there I determine if there is clipping. 

I see. Do you use a custom WB in the camera when shooting? Or do you just bracket exposures? With a 715 filter, it may not be so critical, but with a 780 filter, AWB can throw exposure off by several stops. 

[hmzimelka]

18 minutes ago, J S H said:

I see. Do you use a custom WB in the camera when shooting? Or do you just bracket exposures? With a 715 filter, it may not be so critical, but with a 780 filter, AWB can throw exposure off by several stops. 

I usually just bracket. But I'll probably create a custom WB.

[ianforber]

On 3/26/2023 at 6:46 PM, hdmesa said:

You're not seeing any hot spots? What apertures are you using? When I had a Q2M, I was getting a hot spot in the center of the frame.

Interesting question. I hadn’t noticed any hotspots but maybe I misinterpreted the image. This one is 830nm filter at f8, 15 sec exposure. It’s brighter in the centre but I assumed this was because the sun was shining brightly from the right hand side so that I (and the trees on my right were in shadow). Is this better considered a hotspot?

I should clarify that this is with a Q2, not a Q2M  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 29, 2023 by ianforber

[ianforber]

In contrast (no pun intended!), this is 830nm at f1.7 and 2 sec exposure

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[J S H]

16 hours ago, ianforber said:

Interesting question. I hadn’t noticed any hotspots but maybe I misinterpreted the image. This one is 830nm filter at f8, 15 sec exposure. It’s brighter in the centre but I assumed this was because the sun was shining brightly from the right hand side so that I (and the trees on my right were in shadow). Is this better considered a hotspot?

I should clarify that this is with a Q2, not a Q2M  

 

No, I definitely wouldn't call that a hotpot. Especially not with the aperture stopped down to F8 - it would be pretty defined at that point. The hotspot size and density is directly related to the aperture and they become much more defined and brighter as you stop down.

That's some pretty impressive IR response with such a short exposure, especially if the cutoff on your filter is actually a legit 830nm (sometimes it's hard to tell unless it's from a reputable manufacturer that publishes the specific pass/cutoff frequencies). Either way, it looks to be at least 720 or higher. What was your ISO on this 15 second exposure? At first glance, it would appear that the Q2 has a less restrictive IR filter than the Q2M, which is counterintuitive. 

[ianforber]

On 3/30/2023 at 5:57 AM, J S H said:

No, I definitely wouldn't call that a hotpot. Especially not with the aperture stopped down to F8 - it would be pretty defined at that point. The hotspot size and density is directly related to the aperture and they become much more defined and brighter as you stop down.

That's some pretty impressive IR response with such a short exposure, especially if the cutoff on your filter is actually a legit 830nm (sometimes it's hard to tell unless it's from a reputable manufacturer that publishes the specific pass/cutoff frequencies). Either way, it looks to be at least 720 or higher. What was your ISO on this 15 second exposure? At first glance, it would appear that the Q2 has a less restrictive IR filter than the Q2M, which is counterintuitive. 

The filter is B+W so should be accurate. The ISO for the f8 park image is 800, the one for the f1.7 tree image is 1600. For me, these are the sweet spot for IR on the Q2.

I now tend to use my M11 for IR as it performs much better at higher ISO. Not relevant for the Q2 section but the following M11 image was taken handheld at 5000 ISO at 1/320s and f16 on a 720nm Urth filter

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 31, 2023 by ianforber

[J S H]

6 hours ago, ianforber said:

The filter is B+W so should be accurate. The ISO for the f8 park image is 800, the one for the f1.7 tree image is 1600. For me, these are the sweet spot for IR on the Q2.

I now tend to use my M11 for IR as it performs much better at higher ISO. Not relevant for the Q2 section but the following M11 image was taken handheld at 5000 ISO at 1/320s and f16 on a 720nm Urth filter

Thanks for the info, Ian. As far as I can recall, B+W only makes two IR filters, an 092 and 093. The 093 has a very restrictive cutoff of above 850, but the 092 is much less restrictive. It passes quite a bit of visible light below 700nm and then everything above. Is that by chance the one you were using? Either way, the shots look great. 

[ianforber]

18 hours ago, J S H said:

Thanks for the info, Ian. As far as I can recall, B+W only makes two IR filters, an 092 and 093. The 093 has a very restrictive cutoff of above 850, but the 092 is much less restrictive. It passes quite a bit of visible light below 700nm and then everything above. Is that by chance the one you were using? Either way, the shots look great. 

I’m using the 093 as I was looking for an extreme look. I’d like to have a 780nm filter as a good alternative. Sadly I can’t find a stockist here in the UK and a German stockist of a Heliopan version refused to ship to the UK because of Brexit, even though they were happy to export to other non-EU countries!

[J S H]

7 hours ago, ianforber said:

I’m using the 093 as I was looking for an extreme look. I’d like to have a 780nm filter as a good alternative. Sadly I can’t find a stockist here in the UK and a German stockist of a Heliopan version refused to ship to the UK because of Brexit, even though they were happy to export to other non-EU countries!

I have had very good results with the 720 & 780 Gen 3 Pro filters from Kolari Vision. They are well engineered of brass and very thin, with state of the art coatings. I believe they will ship to the UK, but I have no direct experience with the shipping, aside from the USA. You might take a look though. https://kolarivision.com/product/kolari-pro-gen-3-infrared-lens-filter/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ianforber]

On 4/1/2023 at 6:59 PM, J S H said:

I have had very good results with the 720 & 780 Gen 3 Pro filters from Kolari Vision. They are well engineered of brass and very thin, with state of the art coatings. I believe they will ship to the UK, but I have no direct experience with the shipping, aside from the USA. You might take a look though. https://kolarivision.com/product/kolari-pro-gen-3-infrared-lens-filter/

Thanks for the link, I’ll give it a go. I confess I’d been trying to avoid US shipping costs but it looks like I’ll just have to bite the bullet!