Count_Strad PRO 6:35pm, 1 September 2012
Which conversion is more versitile? When using a Full Spectrum camera for astro photography do you need any special filters or is the conversion enough to get good results? With the FS conversion and using an IR filter will you be back to using timed exposures?
edewbank 5 years ago
With full spectrum and using an IR filter on the front of the lens, the exposure times are similar to using a camera that has been converted by replacing the hot mirror filter on the sensor with an IR only pass filter. That is the convenience of full spectrum, being able to use one camera from UV to visible light to IR, with the inconvenience of needing a separate filter for each situation and each lens.
ll Jayc ll 5 years ago
Full spectrum is more versatile, but you have to buy filters for your lens:
-UV/IR cut filter (to get nomral looking images)
-720nm Infrared filter (to block out UV and normal light)
They are around $100 each depending on your thread diameter.
Then additional filters will cost you as well as additional lenses:
-930nm filter
-UV only filter
I converted my DSLR to full spec and it proved useful as IR doesn't look good in some situations.
akione7 Posted 5 years ago. Edited by akione7 (member) 5 years ago
As says, I also think full spec is the way to go, at least as a starter.

But with me I decided to do it with a bridge camera. This way I was hoping that it wouldn't get too expensive. I didn't know what kind of filter I'll be using, but at least I would only have to deal with 58 mm size. At this size it will be cheaper.

I still use filters of different cutoffs, but less of filters with cutoffs longer than 700nm.

with a modified camera you can use the camera like a "normal" camera regarding exposure time. Two difficulties that you may experience (other than hot spots with certain lenses are:
1. www.flickr.com/groups/55027594@N00/discuss/72157630727831...
2. www.flickr.com/groups/55027594@N00/discuss/72157629630378...
but this probably may not matter for astro-photography. You probably would be shooting full spectrum. I haven't tried it yet as such.
Count_Strad PRO 5 years ago
Well I took the leap and sent my camera to Spencers Camera I have an IR filter already not sure of the ???nm value off the top of my head. But depending on this value will I need to use a tripod/long exposure with it? Or its still like a normal IR converted camera??
mikewestad 5 years ago
If the camera is being converted then you should be able to shoot handheld.
skymyrka 5 years ago
Depends. I prefer specialized cameras/lenses. Either commit to UV or IR. Both require specialized equipment, such as filters, flash setup, lenses, etc. With (d)SLR your biggest challenge will be using filters. It's really difficult to compose/focus with IR filters on. Both, UV and IR have different focusing spectrum. You're better off allocating dedicated equipment for each of the spectrums. The quality of work will not suffer from "one size filts all" approach. It never does.

This area of photography requires a LOT of dedication, patience, technique approach and experimentation. Start small, and then expend. You can always rent converted cameras first to see what suits your needs better.
akione7 Posted 5 years ago. Edited by akione7 (member) 5 years ago
as long as it (dSLR) has live view you should be able to focus and compose.
But more prevalent problems are that with certain lenses you might encounter problems, making that lens barely/totally unusable for IR photography.

1. hot spot issues
www.flickr.com/groups/55027594@N00/discuss/72157594512516...
www.flickr.com/groups/55027594@N00/discuss/72157604011655...
www.flickr.com/groups/infrared/discuss/72157617786734908/...

2. lens focusing
www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/ir&focus.htm
Groups Beta