My 40D has not been modified (had the internal infrared filter removed); I use an ƒ/1.2 lens to maximize the amount of light going into the camera, and the Hoya filter to cut the visible tones. You can get companies to modify Canon cameras so that they no longer have an infrared cut filter; this makes them many times more responsive (faster) when shooting with an IR pass filter, but it also changes the entire balance of how the camera sees when shooting "normal" images. It is also a little bit of a risky procedure. Having said that, it'd be very interesting to shoot with a camera that could "live view" below visible light. As it is, I don't know what I'm shooting until after I've shot it. Of course, it's still better than old school infrared photography, where they didn't know what they'd shot until after the prints came back...

I'm just occasionally experimenting with infrared photography, I find it sort of mildly interesting. I would be much more interested in deeper infrared where a camera could capture heat emissions, rather than just the deep reflecting reds we can't see. With such capability, you could see animals at night by their own heat emissions, the "body-prints" people make on furniture, even footprints if someone stands in one place for a few moments. Unfortunately, sensors for this remain quite expensive, and handheld cameras like the 40D simply don't respond at all in those ranges. Too bad.

On the consumer front, though, they're just becoming available.

#infrared #tree

EXIF: