PDA

View Full Version : Is the Sony A 100 capable of taking IR



sparkie1263
02-05-2008, 03:33 PM
Can you take IR shots with the A100. I saw some shots and would like to try it.
I tried the remote test but it didn't seem to work.
Thanks
Frank

JonathanJ
06-24-2008, 11:16 AM
I can confirm that you can take IR images with the Sony Alpha A100.
You just need an IR filter, like the Hoya R72 filter. You will need a tripod though, as the exposure times are pretty long.

This photo was taken with ISO 100, f11 and a 62 second exposure:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/jjandem/SGE5ZrMYlmI/AAAAAAAABWs/Z9vNkCbTutY/s800/Pond2.jpg

You could bump the ISO and have a faster aperture to get a shorter exposure but it will still be hard to hand-hold it.

Cheers,

Jonathan

sparkie1263
06-24-2008, 03:25 PM
Great image.
Frank

DonSchap
06-24-2008, 05:41 PM
I'd have to say that looks pretty conclusive ... time to buy the filters, Frank.

sparkie1263
06-24-2008, 06:37 PM
I am going to check ebay.

DonSchap
06-24-2008, 07:22 PM
Well, the 62mmų R72-filter (http://www.2filter.com/hoya/hoyaR72Rm90filters.html) runs around $81

I would choose that one just to milk the 18-250mm, 28-300mm and 70-300mm range out of the TAMRON lenses (all three have a common 62mm filter-ring). It would seem to be the bargain size.

All my other lenses are too limited in their focal length and at:

$40 (49mmų, 52mmų, 55mmų) most prime lenses
$81 (62mmų, 67mmų) these two cover most of TAMRON's lenses
~$283 (72mmų, 77mmų) each (depending on size) ultra wide-angle

I would really want the most bang for my buck!

Some of the more popular current TAMRON Lenses have the following ų filter rings:

11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 = 77mmų
18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 = 62mmų
17-50mm f/2.8 = 67mmų
28-75mm f/2.8 = 67mmų
28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 = 62mmų
28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC = 67mmų
70-200mm f/2.8 = 77mmų
70-300mm f/4-5.5.6 = 62mmų
90mm f/2.8 MACRO = 55mmų


So, I guess the heat's on!

JonathanJ
06-24-2008, 08:40 PM
Hello,

I actually got a cheaper generic 62mm IR filter from this seller (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110241208798&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:1123) on eBay, it works fine, is metal and feels okay.

It cost me $35 including postage, which seemed pretty good.

Hope that helps.

JJ

DonSchap
06-24-2008, 08:47 PM
Hey, now that's a pretty good bargain. They, unfortunately, do not have the 62mmų R950 IR-filter. Ah, shucks.

I was wondering, JonathanJ ... any trouble with sharp autofocus? Or does this reduce you to manual focus?

JonathanJ
06-25-2008, 07:09 AM
Hi Don,

So the way I set up the shot above was to frame and auto-focus it on the tripod without the filter on, then attached the filter, switched to manual focus so that it wouldn't go searching again and used my remote shutter release to hold it in bulb mode for 62 seconds.

The focus does change slightly with the IR light, but for a stopped-down landscape like this one, it didn't matter too much.

I tried doing a similar thing to take an IR Macro shot, but a good focus is harder to achieve there. More trial and error with manual focus.

Cheers,

Jonathan

DonSchap
06-25-2008, 09:47 AM
Yep ... I kind of figured there would be a decent type of drawback to a filter like that.

I may just get one of the cheaper ones, to try this level of photography out. If I like it, I'll improve the quality of the filter.

With Photoshop, I created this pseudo-Infrared image of a courtyard sculpture at Oakton Community College ...for class:

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/strange%20art/A-Geometric-Battle.jpg

It may not be a real IR shot, but by God ... you sure can shoot it a lot faster! ;)

JonathanJ
06-25-2008, 09:55 AM
That's a good idea.

I've had fun playing around with IR. It is a bit weird taking long exposures in broad daylight, but it can give some interesting effects and the long exposure takes people out of the picture which is good for landscapes.

JJ