>> I'm looking for an inexpensive Nikon body to
>> dedicate to infrared photography.
> I would go with a MF body because using AF for
> IR doesn't really make any sense because you
> would have to refocus anyway.
Not if you tape an IR filter (like a Wratten 87)
over the AF sensors. If you do that, it works
much better than MF. You can shoot even a fast
telephoto wide open and get sharp pictures every
time. I don't know how well it works on the less
expensive AF Nikons, but it works very well on
the F4 and F5.
> For those who are unaware of the fact IR light
> waves are longer than visible light waves therefore
> you have to adjust your focus. Which is another
> good reason to stick with MF as very few AF lenses
> have this mark on them.
All of mine do. . . but I don't have a lot of zooms,
maybe just the primes are marked? A bigger problem
with the AF's is that thy don't have all of the
f-stops marked on the DOF scale. On my 35mm/f2.0 the
dot's there, somewhere between the visible index and
the mark for f11 -- but is it at f4? f5.6? f8? -- you
can't tell by looking at the lens.
If you're using a red filter instead of an IR-only
filter, you have to stop down so the depth of field
includes both the IR index and the visible light
index (a red filter passes both IR and visible light
so you have to get both in focus), so it's important
to know just what your depth of field is.
>>Since I will be taping a filter between the rails,
> Why do you want to do the filtration this way? For
> me, I see this a very potential way to scratch the
> negatives.
It's a fairly common technique. It allows you to use
a filter that's opaque to visible light and still see
through the lens. You have to use a gel filter that's
thinner than the film rails to keep from scratching
the film.
>>I don't want to spend too much money.
> Don't we all! ! ! <grin>
It's a forlorn hope.
-Don (charter member of Nikoholics Anonymous)
