Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Astrophotography and Sketching >> DSLR & Digital Camera Astro Imaging & Processing

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Question about canon modification.
      #5567578 - 12/12/12 01:24 PM

Hello Everyone. I have a question about the modification on the Canon XS 1000D and I was following the modifications instructions from Here:

Self modification


But didn't show how to add the Astronomik MC Clear Glass. After thinking about it I discover where I need to add the Astronomik MC Clear Glass, I just need to replace the low pass filter or self cleaning sensor unit. I did and also add the low pass filter underneath the board in
order to conect the ribon cable, I re-assembly the camera; but the camera didn't turn ON, so I check all the cables and all was good.. Them after trying, and trying I deside to re-install the low pass filter and the camera and remove the Astronomik MC Clear Glass them the camera works. It's already full spectrum but without the Astronomik MC Clear Glass.

So...I asking somebody: What I need to do in order to add the Astronomik MC Clear Glass and make the camera works?

If anyone can answer me that I'll really happy .

Thanks for all the help.

And likes always: sorry for my English


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5568132 - 12/12/12 07:23 PM

Never mind guys I did already.

Thanks any ways


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5568416 - 12/12/12 10:53 PM

The filter(s) have nothing to do with the functioning of the camera.
Even the self clean element, when removed, *on most models* still operates fine(meaning, obviously the self clean element is no longer there, so NOTHING HAPPENS, BUT, the camera WILL go through the self clean routine and not throw up any errors).
On other models, you will get an error when you first turn the camera on. Err 70 IIRC.
you simply go into the menu and disable the self cleaning routine, and you will be shooting in seconds.

What it sounds like to me, is that something was not fully seated properly (most likely ribbon cable) during your first attempt, and when you went back in and then reassembled, you reassembled so that EVERYthing was PROPERLY seated/connected/etc...

Also, yes. Gary's instructions clearly show how/where to install the Astronomik filter(or ANY replacement filter, Baader/AstroDon/Astronomik/Edmunds/etc) at the bottom of page 4, and the top of page 5...

Either way, glad you got it sorted out!

Cheers


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5568468 - 12/12/12 11:33 PM

lol... Sorry I didn't notice that.... But just thinking I did like the manual said.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LeCarl
super member


Reged: 03/16/11

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5568539 - 12/13/12 12:47 AM

Hummm, I know that we must never use a camera without IR and UV cut, in particular with refractor, it give huge blue puffy stars, no sharpness, details and sky will be red (a lot red! damage the balance of the sky, and hard to ballance if near not possible... result will be horrible!)

MC Clear glass don't cut UV and IR... (this not help)

The best you can do is add an UV IR cut filter, or better again an clip on cls-ccd filter (that cut iv ir and increase Ha and nebulosity contrast... or reduce light pollution)
My friend have this setup ans very pleased with this!

I found:
On some scope or lens, if you stack stock filtered camera with the cls-ccd will give blue/green stars (hard to balance)
This mean it is better to keep the 2 filter at same time option away...

Edited by LeCarl (12/13/12 12:56 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: LeCarl]
      #5568774 - 12/13/12 07:52 AM

Quote:

Hummm, I know that we must never use a camera without IR and UV cut, in particular with refractor, it give huge blue puffy stars, no sharpness, details and sky will be red (a lot red! damage the balance of the sky, and hard to ballance if near not possible... result will be horrible!)

MC Clear glass don't cut UV and IR... (this not help)

The best you can do is add an UV IR cut filter, or better again an clip on cls-ccd filter (that cut iv ir and increase Ha and nebulosity contrast... or reduce light pollution)
My friend have this setup ans very pleased with this!




I hear about it too.. Francisco told me to get a clip filter and I got a: Astronomik EOS clip CLS-CCD filter.

Quote:

I found:
On some scope or lens, if you stack stock filtered camera with the cls-ccd will give blue/green stars (hard to balance)
This mean it is better to keep the 2 filter at same time option away...




Do you mean un-mod cameras with the CLS-CCD? or what do you mean? sorry I got lost.

Edit: Note: Also I do have a 2" Orion Extra-Narrowband Hydrogen-Alpha Filter to help if I need it.

Edited by Aboy (12/13/12 10:14 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LeCarl
super member


Reged: 03/16/11

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5569703 - 12/13/12 06:17 PM

Yes, the CLS CCD is PERFECT! ;p
(and you don't need any other filter or glass, as your camera is for astro only (you don't use the metering and autocus))

''''Do you mean un-mod cameras with the CLS-CCD? or what do you mean? sorry I got lost. '''
Yes, the cls-ccd with a un-moded camera is painfull to maintain balance, if the background is neutral, the stars will look greenish, and if stars look as they should, the background is not correct...

Ha filter best use with a modded unfiltered camera, this is used as filter and cut all UV, lower spectrum and IR (I don't have much experiences, but I will receive mine soon, already ordered...) ;p

But I think that you must not use cls-ccd with the Ha...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: LeCarl]
      #5569958 - 12/13/12 09:09 PM

Quote:

Yes, the CLS CCD is PERFECT! ;p
(and you don't need any other filter or glass, as your camera is for astro only (you don't use the metering and autocus))




Astro only

Quote:

Yes, the cls-ccd with a un-moded camera is painfull to maintain balance, if the background is neutral, the stars will look greenish, and if stars look as they should, the background is not correct...





Tell me about it...





Quote:

Ha filter best use with a modded unfiltered camera, this is used as filter and cut all UV, lower spectrum and IR (I don't have much experiences, but I will receive mine soon, already ordered...) ;p

But I think that you must not use cls-ccd with the Ha...




That's correct... That's why I mod the camera Full spectrum.. I can shoot even in the full moon with the H alpha...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fco_star
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/13/10

Loc: Texas, Midland
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5570006 - 12/13/12 09:42 PM


I hear about it too.. Francisco told me to get a clip filter and I got a: Astronomik EOS clip CLS-CCD filter.

Quote:



You will be very please with your modded + CLS-CCD filter, there are many ways to get reed of the bluish or green color.
I think that what you have now is a full spectrum camera which is great mine is full spectrum too.
Are you using RAW or JPG to process?
Many guys here in CN use this recipe with excellent results specially if they live in high LP areas, and many others even use the CLS-CCD filter in dark sites too, just practice with it.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: fco_star]
      #5570188 - 12/14/12 12:13 AM

thanks my friend

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: LeCarl]
      #5570209 - 12/14/12 12:33 AM Attachment (43 downloads)

Quote:

Hummm, I know that we must never use a camera without IR and UV cut, in particular with refractor, it give huge blue puffy stars, no sharpness, details and sky will be red (a lot red! damage the balance of the sky, and hard to ballance if near not possible... result will be horrible!)

MC Clear glass don't cut UV and IR... (this not help)

The best you can do is add an UV IR cut filter, or better again an clip on cls-ccd filter (that cut iv ir and increase Ha and nebulosity contrast... or reduce light pollution)
My friend have this setup ans very pleased with this!

I found:
On some scope or lens, if you stack stock filtered camera with the cls-ccd will give blue/green stars (hard to balance)
This mean it is better to keep the 2 filter at same time option away...




But you do not NEED an IR/UV Cut filter.
Why?
Because the camera already has one!
We DO NOT REMOVE THE IR BLOCK Filter when performing modifications for AP.

THere are TWO stock filters.
1) LPF-1. Also known as the Self Cleaning Element, or Low Pass Filter, this is a filter WITH IR/UV Block!
2) LPF-2. this filter is ONLY a WB filter. It ONLY restricts wavelengths to mimic the human eye...
LPF-2 is the "Bad for AP" filter. This is the ONLY filter we remove for a "Standard/Baader" type of mod, which leaves the system with an IR/UV Block filter INSIDE the camera!!!

We ONLY remove/replace **LPF-2**!!!
****LPF-1 remains INTACT****
LPF-1 has to be kept in the system unless you want a Full Spectrum Mod(removal of BOTH stock filters and no replacement filters are used).

Ask anyone here. LPF-2 is the filter you remove....NOT the "IR/UV Block" filter of the system!!

Why do people THINK we remove the IR block filter for mods?
Easy.
Years ago the only option you had for replacement filters was a Baader IR Block filter.
But this was on models that have ONE stock filter. ONE stock filter that does everything mentioned above.
If you remove that ONE, and ONLY filter, you have a Full Spectrum(UNfiltered) camera.
So, your ONLY choice was the Baader IR Block if you wanted a system with an IR block INside the camera.

This is why people are confused. For years people have been saying "you have to remove the IR Block filter and replace it with another IR cut, but one that has more transmission at Ha, in order to get properly filtered images".
That WAS the case, on models upto the 30D(which is ANCIENT in camera years!!)

This is NO LONGER the case!

What is the purpose of a replacement filter for LPF-2??
AF calibration remains intact. **THAT IS IT!**
Whether the replacement for LPF-2 is a Baader, Astronomik Clear Glass, AstroDon, Edmunds Clear, etc, etc, etc... the only point of installing a replacement filter is to keep AF intact. that's it..
Otherwise, your system will actually perform BETTER, with tighter stellar images(less bloat), with the least amount of glass/filters installed. it is simple physics. not rocket science.

Again, this is all assuming that ****LPF-1 remains INTACT**** post-mod.
If LPF-1 is in there, you can use ANYthing or NOTHING for the replacement of LPF-2!

IMHO, if you wanted the absolute best performance, that would be a full spectrum modified camera and then install a CLS-CCD filter, or any IR/UV Block or Luminance Filter in the mix somewhere to block IR/UV..that will deliver the absolute sharpest stellar images, least amount of star bloat, and possibly even slightly more data!!

But for 90% of us, the "Standard" mod(also known as the Baader Mod, even though a Baader filter is NOT needed!!) does the trick just fine.


I am not saying I am an expert on this, and you by no means have to take my word for it, you can do what you like..
But with 6+ years of modifications, 400+ ASTRO mods(not including other mods!), I would like to think my opinion holds some kind of value..
If not, that is perfectly fine, too!


Here is an image showing the dual filter system used in 90% of newer models(ALL Canon from the 400D and newer, and most Nikons)

Good luck!

Edited by nofxrx (12/14/12 12:35 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: fco_star]
      #5570260 - 12/14/12 02:32 AM

Hey Francisco do you have your cameras with Tyne low pass filter and use the CLS-CCD Filter?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5570265 - 12/14/12 02:37 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Hummm, I know that we must never use a camera without IR and UV cut, in particular with refractor, it give huge blue puffy stars, no sharpness, details and sky will be red (a lot red! damage the balance of the sky, and hard to ballance if near not possible... result will be horrible!)

MC Clear glass don't cut UV and IR... (this not help)

The best you can do is add an UV IR cut filter, or better again an clip on cls-ccd filter (that cut iv ir and increase Ha and nebulosity contrast... or reduce light pollution)
My friend have this setup ans very pleased with this!

I found:
On some scope or lens, if you stack stock filtered camera with the cls-ccd will give blue/green stars (hard to balance)
This mean it is better to keep the 2 filter at same time option away...




But you do not NEED an IR/UV Cut filter.
Why?
Because the camera already has one!
We DO NOT REMOVE THE IR BLOCK Filter when performing modifications for AP.

THere are TWO stock filters.
1) LPF-1. Also known as the Self Cleaning Element, or Low Pass Filter, this is a filter WITH IR/UV Block!
2) LPF-2. this filter is ONLY a WB filter. It ONLY restricts wavelengths to mimic the human eye...
LPF-2 is the "Bad for AP" filter. This is the ONLY filter we remove for a "Standard/Baader" type of mod, which leaves the system with an IR/UV Block filter INSIDE the camera!!!

We ONLY remove/replace **LPF-2**!!!
****LPF-1 remains INTACT****
LPF-1 has to be kept in the system unless you want a Full Spectrum Mod(removal of BOTH stock filters and no replacement filters are used).

Ask anyone here. LPF-2 is the filter you remove....NOT the "IR/UV Block" filter of the system!!

Why do people THINK we remove the IR block filter for mods?
Easy.
Years ago the only option you had for replacement filters was a Baader IR Block filter.
But this was on models that have ONE stock filter. ONE stock filter that does everything mentioned above.
If you remove that ONE, and ONLY filter, you have a Full Spectrum(UNfiltered) camera.
So, your ONLY choice was the Baader IR Block if you wanted a system with an IR block INside the camera.

This is why people are confused. For years people have been saying "you have to remove the IR Block filter and replace it with another IR cut, but one that has more transmission at Ha, in order to get properly filtered images".
That WAS the case, on models upto the 30D(which is ANCIENT in camera years!!)

This is NO LONGER the case!

What is the purpose of a replacement filter for LPF-2??
AF calibration remains intact. **THAT IS IT!**
Whether the replacement for LPF-2 is a Baader, Astronomik Clear Glass, AstroDon, Edmunds Clear, etc, etc, etc... the only point of installing a replacement filter is to keep AF intact. that's it..
Otherwise, your system will actually perform BETTER, with tighter stellar images(less bloat), with the least amount of glass/filters installed. it is simple physics. not rocket science.

Again, this is all assuming that ****LPF-1 remains INTACT**** post-mod.
If LPF-1 is in there, you can use ANYthing or NOTHING for the replacement of LPF-2!

IMHO, if you wanted the absolute best performance, that would be a full spectrum modified camera and then install a CLS-CCD filter, or any IR/UV Block or Luminance Filter in the mix somewhere to block IR/UV..that will deliver the absolute sharpest stellar images, least amount of star bloat, and possibly even slightly more data!!

But for 90% of us, the "Standard" mod(also known as the Baader Mod, even though a Baader filter is NOT needed!!) does the trick just fine.


I am not saying I am an expert on this, and you by no means have to take my word for it, you can do what you like..
But with 6+ years of modifications, 400+ ASTRO mods(not including other mods!), I would like to think my opinion holds some kind of value..
If not, that is perfectly fine, too!


Here is an image showing the dual filter system used in 90% of newer models(ALL Canon from the 400D and newer, and most Nikons)

Good luck!




Them if this is true.... Why in the hell I waste my money for an Astronomik Clear Glass and one CLS-CCD filter.... Damn... I am an IDIOT

Edited by Aboy (12/14/12 02:40 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustinLT
member


Reged: 07/25/12

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5570354 - 12/14/12 06:18 AM

Holy *BLEEP*...
This post just ruined all my knowledge on all DSLR modification thing... I was planning to do this for a while, but wanted to collect some more info.
If the first filter really filters IR/UV, why the hell people are buying all those baaded IR/UV cut filters? Does it mean, that only the 2nd filter filters the H-alpha light?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: JustinLT]
      #5570410 - 12/14/12 07:30 AM

It's no like the filter it's bad...

The CLS vs the CLS-CCD:

CLS:
Technical Data
92% transmission at 486nm (H-beta)
92% transmission at 496nm (OIII)
92% transmission at 501nm (OIII)
97% transmission at 656nm (H alpha)
pass from 450 to 540nm and beyond 650nm

CLS-CCD:
Technical Data
95% transmission at 486nm (H-beta)
95% transmission at 496nm (OIII)
95% transmission at 501nm (OIII)
97% transmission at 656nm (H-alpha)
pass from 450 to 520nm and from 640 to 690nm

I do prefer the CLS-CCD. My complain it's about the Low Pass Filter... I read around before mod my camera and at least the 92% or 93% agree to remove the Low Pass Filter when you Use the CLS-CCD... But now with the information from nofxrx I just feel like..... I still have the Low Pass Filter... But Now I don't know what to do.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5570414 - 12/14/12 07:35 AM

Quote:

There are TWO stock filters.
1) LPF-1. Also known as the Self Cleaning Element, or Low Pass Filter, this is a filter WITH IR/UV Block!
2) LPF-2. this filter is ONLY a WB filter. It ONLY restricts wavelengths to mimic the human eye...
LPF-2 is the "Bad for AP" filter. This is the ONLY filter we remove for a "Standard/Baader" type of mod, which leaves the system with an IR/UV Block filter INSIDE the camera!!!




Brent, if I could get 'true'/'false' answers to these two questions, would appreciate:

1. Stock LPF-1 (IR/UV Block) does NOT block H-alpha?
2. Stock LPF-2 (WB filter) blocks/restricts H-alpha?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fco_star
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/13/10

Loc: Texas, Midland
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5570473 - 12/14/12 08:47 AM

Quote:

Hey Francisco do you have your cameras with Tyne low pass filter and use the CLS-CCD Filter?




Hi Aboy, I have the full spectrum modded by Brent, having a CLS-CCD is a plus if you decided in the future to go for a full spectrum, I´m not an expert and I dont want to confuse you more.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: fco_star]
      #5570535 - 12/14/12 09:39 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Hey Francisco do you have your cameras with Tyne low pass filter and use the CLS-CCD Filter?




Hi Aboy, I have the full spectrum modded by Brent, having a CLS-CCD is a plus if you decided in the future to go for a full spectrum, I´m not an expert and I dont want to confuse you more.




I mod my camera to full spectrum already.... I don't confuse me at all.. You give me your opinion and I do really appreciate it.

The thing is if it's better the Low Pass Filter or like I did with the Klarglass... Just that... Cuz I'm already spend the money on the Glass.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LeCarl
super member


Reged: 03/16/11

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5570600 - 12/14/12 10:26 AM

I mean, never remove the LPF1 filter...

When I talk full spectrum, it mean no filter on sensor, but the LPF1 is on, because it's a cleaning filter, supposed to don't have any filter activity, NOT cut any uv or ir...

I never remove this one! the cmos is like static charge magnet to the dust... so you need the LPF1! ;p

Edited by LeCarl (12/14/12 10:28 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: LeCarl]
      #5570643 - 12/14/12 10:56 AM

Quote:

I mean, never remove the LPF1 filter...

When I talk full spectrum, it mean no filter on sensor, but the LPF1 is on, because it's a cleaning filter, supposed to don't have any filter activity, NOT cut any uv or ir...

I never remove this one! the cmos is like static charge magnet to the dust... so you need the LPF1! ;p




But with the clear class I put from Astronomic I can fit the low pass filter on... Is no space for it...

Them if the same ... I just waste my money in the clear glass


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WhitenerJ
professor emeritus


Reged: 02/06/12

Loc: Waxahachie, Texas
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: LeCarl]
      #5570648 - 12/14/12 10:58 AM

I have the clear glass standard mod by Brent with the LPF-1 left in place and can confirm no additional IR filter is required.

Jason


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CA Stargazer
member


Reged: 01/27/12

Loc: Milpitas, California
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: WhitenerJ]
      #5570800 - 12/14/12 12:43 PM

Aboy,
If you wanted Full Spectrum (Removed both LPF1 and LPF2)
Then the clear glass is your dust protection and will protect your CMOS from debris. I don't think it is a waste of money for that piece of mind.

Removing LPF1 also gets rid of the anti-aliasing function effect, some may prefer that.

Elsewhere in these forums are very good plots of LPF1 LPF2 spectral range.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: CA Stargazer]
      #5570991 - 12/14/12 03:06 PM

Thanks... I did that already no LPF1 and LPF2. I'll use the CLS-CCD and sometimes the H alpha to shoot some pictures.

Edited by Aboy (12/14/12 04:27 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: CA Stargazer]
      #5571107 - 12/14/12 04:28 PM

Quote:

Quote:

There are TWO stock filters.
1) LPF-1. Also known as the Self Cleaning Element, or Low Pass Filter, this is a filter WITH IR/UV Block!
2) LPF-2. this filter is ONLY a WB filter. It ONLY restricts wavelengths to mimic the human eye...
LPF-2 is the "Bad for AP" filter. This is the ONLY filter we remove for a "Standard/Baader" type of mod, which leaves the system with an IR/UV Block filter INSIDE the camera!!!




Brent, if I could get 'true'/'false' answers to these two questions, would appreciate:

1. Stock LPF-1 (IR/UV Block) does NOT block H-alpha?
2. Stock LPF-2 (WB filter) blocks/restricts H-alpha?




I can try

1: TRUE!! LPF-1 is ONLY a "clear filter" with IR UV blocking. "Clear" meaning it has NO tint to it at all and means it passes 100% of the visible spectrum, Ha included!...which leads me to the second question/answer:
2: TRUE! LPF-2 is ONLY a "WB" filter. Meaning it IS the ONLY filter that is "restricting"/blocking wavelengths to match the typical or wanted output of digital cameras..it has a greenish-blue tint to it. That is the tell-tale sign of a "WB filter".

Now, trying not to add anymore confusion, let me clarify a couple things.
LPF-2 DOES block IR/UV as well..it has to...but this is not because it is an "IR/UV Block(only)" filter, it is because the WB it is creating just happens to block MOST of the unwanted IR and UV...its purpose is NOT to block IR/UV, it is ONLY to manipulate the wavelengths closer to how WE see things..so the fact that it blocks IR/UV is just a side effect of the WB characteristics.
If these filters were designed to BOTH be IR/UV block, why would they install TWO filters? why not just use the ONE LPF-2 filter and be done with it?
Because they CANT, LPF-1 HAS TO REMAIN INtact IF you want an IR/UV Block filter INside the camera, regardless of whether LPF-2 is installed or not.
With LPF-2 removed, we now have removed the filter that restricts Ha transmissions to ~7-10%(stock camera transmissions) and it will now pass 100%(98-99.9999%) Ha.

SO. at this point, we have:
LPF-1 INstalled and LPF-2 *removed*, right? so we get a camera that has 100% transmission BETWEEN 400nm(UV) and 700nm(IR), the entire VISIBLE spectrum. Which is what is NEEDED for "proper" astro images.

You are DONE at this point. You have the wanted spectrum passing, and the unwanted being blocked.
Whether or not you install a replacement for LPF-2 is COMPLETELY up to YOU!

If you need AF calibration to remain intact, you need to replace LPF-2 with SOMETHING..ANYthing.
But, the higher quality the filter, the better, right? YES!
SO. Baader(IR Block OR Clear(Baader's FBCF-5D MarkII filter is NOT an IR block!!)), AstroDon(IR block), or Astronomik(clear glass only), or even the clear glass I use, Edmunds Optics High Transmission Clear Glass with AR(Anti-Reflection) coatings.
It doesnt matter which you use. THe only REAL purpose of using these filters is to keep AF calibration.
But, since there are many options, and all that I mentioned are VERY high quality filters, they are perfect for this application.
But, the fact that you are using an IR Blocking filter for the LPF-2 replacement just means that the majority of the expense for the AstroDon and Baader (IR blocking) filters is wasted $ and is redundant when LPF-1 is still in the camera since both filters serve the EXACT same purpose..

The reverse of this is true as well..think about it..
If you were to remove BOTH stock filters, and then install an AstroDon or Baader IR Block filter, you would have the EXACT same performance as a system with only LPF-1 in it.
Actually, since LPF-1 is a Low Pass Filter(blurs the images ever so slightly), you could actually have sharper images by doing this method.
But WHY!? When the FREE stock filter is already in there doing what these filters do, why bother? Just keep LPF-1, remove LPF-2 and go shoot some Ha rich images! and it didnt cost you ANYthing(except maybe time/$ for the actual mod!)


Why do "some people" (professionals, not your average Joe on CN that is voicing his opinion) tell you that you NEED to use a Baader or AstroDon filter? I have no clue. If you went and did the research, and looked at the tons of data on the net showing that an LPF-1 system works EXACTLY like an "AstroDon, or Baader" camera, or just ask the MANY people right here on CN that have this system, you would see there is no reason.

Let me just add this.
I know for a fact that anyone doing these mods professionally, myself included, gets these filters as VERY nice discounts! We MAKE MORE $ when people want the Baader/AstroDon/expensive filters...so why tell anyone the truth when it will cut into your profits?
I am not saying in any way that is what other's do..at all..
But what other reason could they have for not telling people the truth.

I for one think everyone should know as much about ANY subject as possible so that they can make a more informed decision..which is why I sit here on CN year after year and tell people this exact same info..
Sometimes I get jobs from it, other times I help people do the mod themselves..
I never intended to make tons of money off of my fellow imagers when I started this. I have the tech background and experience..so I just do whatever comes across my desk..
Either way, if I do the mod or not, people are HAPPY with my services. I answer emails daily on people just looking for help or opinions on what they should do, what mod to do, what equipment works best with that mod, how to do the mod themselves, and obviously, how much I charge to do the mods..
Some are paying jobs, some aren't, but I consider ALL of them to be customers. And customers deserve the best possible service and they have the right to know EVERYTHING that is relevant to the job/tech/service/etc. period.

SORRY!
Back on topic..I ramble sometimes..


Quote:

I mean, never remove the LPF1 filter...

When I talk full spectrum, it mean no filter on sensor, but the LPF1 is on, because it's a cleaning filter, supposed to don't have any filter activity, NOT cut any uv or ir...

I never remove this one! the cmos is like static charge magnet to the dust... so you need the LPF1! ;p




This is COMPLETELY WRONG!!! Sorry, but you are WAY off base here..

If LPF-1 is still inside the camera, YOU DO NOT HAVE a Full Spectrum Mod.
You CANT!!!
It IS 100% without a doubt the IR/UV Block filter of the system.
It also has the Piezo Electric Element(that thingy that vibrates the dust off of the filter) attached to it...but that doesnt mean it is "only a cleaning filter"
Dont believe me? easy to prove.
A REAL Full Spectrum Modified camera SHOULD be able to take VERY, VERY short exposures with an IR PASS filter, think "Daytime IR" shots..the black and white, with trees and grass all white, the sky black, etc..etc..
Take YOUR camera out with an IR PASS filter, any one..Hoya R72, it doesnt matter.
Try and take an image. you will see that IR is being FULLY blocked by LPF-1, and you will HAVE to use LOOOOONG exposures and a tripod for ANYthing in the IR.
Full Spectrum=FULL SPECTRAL TRANSMISSIONS! i.e. ALL light passes to the sensor, INCLUDING IR and UV!!
With my REAL Full Spectrum Modified cameras, I take daytime IR(pass) images at 1/4000th exposures at ISO100 and F/8!!
You would need 10seconds, ISO1600, and F2.8!
You are wrong.

I am not trying to be rude, but this is just so wrong, I have to say something..

ALSO.
Quote:

I never remove this one! the cmos is like static charge magnet to the dust... so you need the LPF1! ;p




Umm..no. you dont.
The sensor is NEVER exposed. the sensor itself is a DIP(dual in line package), ceramic encased, with a CLEAR window on the front. The sensor is ALWAYS inside this package and behind this window. If you removed the glass from the sensor, then you are asking for trouble.
This window IS NOT a "filter", or even removable! It is permanently attached to the ceramic package.
So even if you have a Full Spectrum mod camera with no filters inside, the sensor, the **ACTUAL silicon sensor** is NEVER exposed, or even remotely in danger from anything..let alone "charged dust particles"?? seriously??

Also, think about this in terms of "cleanliness or possible debris issues"..
A stock camera, or a Baader/AstroDon camera has FIVE optical surfaces for dust/debris to cling to.
1) LPF-1. both sides=surfaces 1 & 2
2) Baader/AstroDon/ or Clear Glass. both sides=surfaces 3 & 4
3) optical window on sensor(only one side accessible)= surface 5

A full spectrum camera has ONE surface to keep clean!
ONE! the sensor's window..that's it!
Not FIVE! ONE!

I wish we could have systems that have ONE surface that needed cleaning and still have IR/UV Blocking, or even stock cameras..but that is not the way it works.

LPF-1 only cleans ITSELF. NOT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM!!!!


I really think there is a lot about electronics and optics that you need to learn before making statements like these..

Again, I dont mean to be rude or harsh, but I do not know how else to explain this stuff..and do not want people getting very confused over your 'advice'..


Quote:

Aboy,
If you wanted Full Spectrum (Removed both LPF1 and LPF2)
Then the clear glass is your dust protection and will protect your CMOS from debris. I don't think it is a waste of money for that piece of mind.

Removing LPF1 also gets rid of the anti-aliasing function effect, some may prefer that.

Elsewhere in these forums are very good plots of LPF1 LPF2 spectral range.




EXACTLY!!!
Aboy, you in NO WAY wasted your money. You actually did something that makes perfect sense...problem was that you didnt know what you were doing when you did it lol
But, you will be fine!!
Since you have it, install the Astronomik filter...
But, seeing your recent posts about the camera not working the first time, then after you went back in and did something it worked again, and IS working now...I would just leave it as is...
but that is just my opinion...
Yes it means that you paid $ for the filter and didnt use it..but so what..sell it! you might make back some or most of that $..

Or, if you do install it, just be careful and take your time and use the tutorials available and I think you will be fine.

Your AF is going to be way off now that both filters have been removed..so even installing the Astronomik is not going to bring that back to PERFECT calibration, it will be close, but still not accurate enough for daytime use.



Wow...think this is my longest post ever..
If ANYone suffered through that, I would be surprised LOL!!

Cheers!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5571172 - 12/14/12 05:09 PM

Quote:


Aboy, you in NO WAY wasted your money. You actually did something that makes perfect sense...problem was that you didnt know what you were doing when you did it lol
But, you will be fine!!
Since you have it, install the Astronomik filter...
But, seeing your recent posts about the camera not working the first time, then after you went back in and did something it worked again, and IS working now...I would just leave it as is...
but that is just my opinion...
Yes it means that you paid $ for the filter and didnt use it..but so what..sell it! you might make back some or most of that $..

Or, if you do install it, just be careful and take your time and use the tutorials available and I think you will be fine.

Your AF is going to be way off now that both filters have been removed..so even installing the Astronomik is not going to bring that back to PERFECT calibration, it will be close, but still not accurate enough for daytime use.





Thanks for the post and help me to clear some question.. I'm really glad that you people takes time and answer my question.

Also:

1: jajajajaja yes, I did mod my camera with no much knowledge about it how to mod it.. But everyone do the same the first time. We learn with the practice XD


2. Believe me... I'll.

3. I don't care about the AF. I want my camera for astrophography. If I want to shoot some day time pictures, I'll use manual focus..

Also I'll practice hard in order to learn how to takes good pictures.

Thanks again.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5571183 - 12/14/12 05:15 PM

Quote:

Quote:


Aboy, you in NO WAY wasted your money. You actually did something that makes perfect sense...problem was that you didnt know what you were doing when you did it lol
But, you will be fine!!
Since you have it, install the Astronomik filter...
But, seeing your recent posts about the camera not working the first time, then after you went back in and did something it worked again, and IS working now...I would just leave it as is...
but that is just my opinion...
Yes it means that you paid $ for the filter and didnt use it..but so what..sell it! you might make back some or most of that $..

Or, if you do install it, just be careful and take your time and use the tutorials available and I think you will be fine.

Your AF is going to be way off now that both filters have been removed..so even installing the Astronomik is not going to bring that back to PERFECT calibration, it will be close, but still not accurate enough for daytime use.





Thanks for the post and help me to clear some question.. I'm really glad that you people takes time and answer my question.

Also:

1: jajajajaja yes, I did mod my camera with no much knowledge about it how to mod it.. But everyone do the same the first time. We learn with the practice XD


2. Believe me... I'll.

3. I don't care about the AF. I want my camera for astrophography. If I want to shoot some day time pictures, I'll use manual focus..

Also I'll practice hard in order to learn how to takes good pictures.

Thanks again.




Anytime!

Yea, everyone has to start somewhere..I did..my first camera took me like 5 hours to do and I was a nervous wreck the entire time..now I can do them in my sleep..LOL

But, that is what is so great about CN, you have a ton of people on here that have most likely been through the same situation(s) as you/I/anyone, and we can all help each other figure this out as we go! lol


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5571237 - 12/14/12 05:59 PM

Brent, thanks for the great write-up; this is really helpful in understanding the concept. Please see if you can help clarify some terminology confusion:

One of your fellow professional DSLR modifier offers these mod options:

•Option 1 - IR Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - IR Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - IR Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - IR Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Does ‘IR Filter’ above refer to LPF-2 (WB filter)? If yes, why there is so much disparity in referring to same components among professionals? My concern being it adds more confusion than clarity for something that is really 'simple' if terminology was standard. After all we are talking two layers/filters, how complicated could it be; would you agree? Sorry, just little frustrated at terminology jargon, nothing against you or anyone else.

Wouldn't following make more sense?

•Option 1 - LPF-2 Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Thx

Edited by mmalik (12/14/12 06:42 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5571441 - 12/14/12 07:52 PM

Quote:

Brent, thanks for the great write-up; this is really helpful in understanding the concept. Please see if you can help clarify some terminology confusion:

One of your fellow professional DSLR modifier offers these mod options:

•Option 1 - IR Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - IR Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - IR Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - IR Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Does ‘IR Filter’ above refer to LPF-2 (WB filter)? If yes, why there is so much disparity in referring to same components among professionals? My concern being it adds more confusion than clarity for something that is really 'simple' if terminology was standard. After all we are talking two layers/filters, how complicated could it be; would you agree? Sorry, just little frustrated at terminology jargon, nothing against you or anyone else.

Wouldn't following make more sense?

•Option 1 - LPF-2 Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Thx




Yep!! this is one of the reasons for a lot of the confusion!

However, Hap's pricing models there show the options for ALL models, including the older models that DO require an IR Filter replacement, mainly the 20D/30D/300D/350D/etc...so, as to not confuse his customers, I would think that this is why he words things this way...****AFAIK! I cannot speak for him/anyone else!****

There is always confusion in terminology when something is first 'discovered'/brought to attention/debated,etc..
But, with only a VERY small group of guys doing this, and having it split right down the middle(AFAIK, there are several international modification companies that share my exact opinions/ideas..Hap and Gary are the only two, AFAIK, that still hold to the OLD truths that WERE relevant to older models!)
Maybe it is an age thing...? I am "only" 30, so perhaps I am not as set in my ways and unwilling to change as "others" lol (I AM NOT laughing at anyone, or poking fun, or saying ANYthing negative about anyone! atleast not intentionally!)


If you were to ask "them" if you needed an AstroDon or Baader filter to replace LPF-2, they would undoubtedly say YES!
Again..my points are still valid. whether people, or even 'them', believe me or not.
I will not even go into the "proven test" performed by one of those guys that shows LPF-1 does not block enough IR for "proper" astro images. THat test is so flawed it really isnt even funny, and a LOT of people use that as definitive "proof" that one needs an IR replacement for LPF-2.

Things like this prove otherwise!
This is a ***REAL*** test!
REALLY look at the sets of images, particularly the top row of images. Look at the Stock 1000D image, this shows a stock camera not allowing ANY IR data through..the images next to it, the ones of a Baader filter and an LPF-1 only system, guess what? THEY ARE IDENTICAL(to each other, not compared to the stock 1000D image)!!!!

So...since BOTH the Baader AND LPF-1 only images show the exact same amount of IR data in the image, what does this mean?
It means that NO MATTER WHAT MOD you do, assuming an IR Block is LEFT INTACT and LPF-2 is removed, you will have the EXACT same performance.
My guess is that the small amount of IR data(compared to the Full Spectrum 350D image and the stock 1000D image) that still transmits through is of no consequence to our pursuits..

Also, if you look at the images below those that show the remote's IR LED, you will see that by just adding a WB filter(in this exact case the X-Nite CC1 filter from MaxMax), there is ZERO IR data passed....which means, YES, LPF-2 or any WB filter DOES block some IR, which is a result of their spectral curve modification/restrictions..the return a camera back to stock..they remove all deep red(Ha) data....But the point/my main point is, and always has been, that the "bad" filter, LPF-2 has to be removed (this is universal no matter who you ask), whether you use ONLY LPF-1 or an expensive alternative, you get the EXACT same performance!!
That is my whole point. Why waste the $ on an expensive filter if LPF-1 does the EXACT same job/amount of "work" as the expensive filters..?

All of my tests are DIRECTLY in line with this test above, and NOT Gary's!!
Though I have only tested on TRUE IR light sources, not flashlights(like Gary), or a stove burner(like the one above)..
Only with REAL IR sources can you judge a modified system's performance..
And there is very little to debate..
I need to make a write-up very soon to help squash some of this confusion..
I cannot wait til I have some time to finish my website, I would hope that it would help a lot of people see what is going on inside these cameras, and how we can manipulate things to get the desired output..
If I only had SOME spare time!


And yes, a lot of confusion would be gone if we could all agree on the same terminology..
I will be the first to admit if/when I am wrong..so all anyone has to do is prove to me that I am, I will change my opinions/advice..
But from everything I have ever seen online, and from ALL of my experience, everything I have said reads 100% true in my head..AND MANY, MANY customer's as well!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5571977 - 12/15/12 03:44 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Brent, thanks for the great write-up; this is really helpful in understanding the concept. Please see if you can help clarify some terminology confusion:

One of your fellow professional DSLR modifier offers these mod options:

•Option 1 - IR Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - IR Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - IR Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - IR Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Does ‘IR Filter’ above refer to LPF-2 (WB filter)? If yes, why there is so much disparity in referring to same components among professionals? My concern being it adds more confusion than clarity for something that is really 'simple' if terminology was standard. After all we are talking two layers/filters, how complicated could it be; would you agree? Sorry, just little frustrated at terminology jargon, nothing against you or anyone else.

Wouldn't following make more sense?

•Option 1 - LPF-2 Filter Removal Only
•Option 2 - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Clear Glass
•Option 3A - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Astrodon UV/IR block filter
•Option 3B - LPF-2 Filter Replacement with Baader UV/IR block filter

Thx




Yep!! this is one of the reasons for a lot of the confusion!

However, Hap's pricing models there show the options for ALL models, including the older models that DO require an IR Filter replacement, mainly the 20D/30D/300D/350D/etc...so, as to not confuse his customers, I would think that this is why he words things this way...****AFAIK! I cannot speak for him/anyone else!****

There is always confusion in terminology when something is first 'discovered'/brought to attention/debated,etc..
But, with only a VERY small group of guys doing this, and having it split right down the middle(AFAIK, there are several international modification companies that share my exact opinions/ideas..Hap and Gary are the only two, AFAIK, that still hold to the OLD truths that WERE relevant to older models!)
Maybe it is an age thing...? I am "only" 30, so perhaps I am not as set in my ways and unwilling to change as "others" lol (I AM NOT laughing at anyone, or poking fun, or saying ANYthing negative about anyone! atleast not intentionally!)


If you were to ask "them" if you needed an AstroDon or Baader filter to replace LPF-2, they would undoubtedly say YES!
Again..my points are still valid. whether people, or even 'them', believe me or not.
I will not even go into the "proven test" performed by one of those guys that shows LPF-1 does not block enough IR for "proper" astro images. THat test is so flawed it really isnt even funny, and a LOT of people use that as definitive "proof" that one needs an IR replacement for LPF-2.

Things like this prove otherwise!
This is a ***REAL*** test!
REALLY look at the sets of images, particularly the top row of images. Look at the Stock 1000D image, this shows a stock camera not allowing ANY IR data through..the images next to it, the ones of a Baader filter and an LPF-1 only system, guess what? THEY ARE IDENTICAL(to each other, not compared to the stock 1000D image)!!!!

So...since BOTH the Baader AND LPF-1 only images show the exact same amount of IR data in the image, what does this mean?
It means that NO MATTER WHAT MOD you do, assuming an IR Block is LEFT INTACT and LPF-2 is removed, you will have the EXACT same performance.
My guess is that the small amount of IR data(compared to the Full Spectrum 350D image and the stock 1000D image) that still transmits through is of no consequence to our pursuits..

Also, if you look at the images below those that show the remote's IR LED, you will see that by just adding a WB filter(in this exact case the X-Nite CC1 filter from MaxMax), there is ZERO IR data passed....which means, YES, LPF-2 or any WB filter DOES block some IR, which is a result of their spectral curve modification/restrictions..the return a camera back to stock..they remove all deep red(Ha) data....But the point/my main point is, and always has been, that the "bad" filter, LPF-2 has to be removed (this is universal no matter who you ask), whether you use ONLY LPF-1 or an expensive alternative, you get the EXACT same performance!!
That is my whole point. Why waste the $ on an expensive filter if LPF-1 does the EXACT same job/amount of "work" as the expensive filters..?

All of my tests are DIRECTLY in line with this test above, and NOT Gary's!!
Though I have only tested on TRUE IR light sources, not flashlights(like Gary), or a stove burner(like the one above)..
Only with REAL IR sources can you judge a modified system's performance..
And there is very little to debate..
I need to make a write-up very soon to help squash some of this confusion..
I cannot wait til I have some time to finish my website, I would hope that it would help a lot of people see what is going on inside these cameras, and how we can manipulate things to get the desired output..
If I only had SOME spare time!


And yes, a lot of confusion would be gone if we could all agree on the same terminology..
I will be the first to admit if/when I am wrong..so all anyone has to do is prove to me that I am, I will change my opinions/advice..
But from everything I have ever seen online, and from ALL of my experience, everything I have said reads 100% true in my head..AND MANY, MANY customer's as well!




Thanks Brent for your understanding and elaborating. Would be great if Hap and Gary could chime in and once for all get following sorted out:

1. Type of mods being offered; if replacing LPF-2 with expensive alternatives is just waste of $, then let's just NOT promote it anymore.

2. Using standard terminology (i.e., LPF-1 & LPF-2, etc., and NOT using confusing terms like ‘IR Filter Replacement’, etc.) so all could speak and comprehend the same language.

3. Last but not least, resolve OLD (single [IR] filter systems) vs. NEW (two [LPF-1, LPF-2] filter systems) confusion; if old truths don't hold true any longer, why not make contemporary (two filter systems) the norm and old (single filter systems) an exception, be it terminology or solutions offered?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5572026 - 12/15/12 05:13 AM

All VERY good points, and I agree completely!

But...I really dont see your first point actually happening...
I just dont think anyone is going to stop promoting filters that add more $ to their pockets..
I tell people everything about filters and some people still prefer to have the "name brand" filters installed..to each their own..
So, unless everyone(impossible) became more knowledgeable about the issues, there will always be demand for these filters...
atleast, imho..

And I dont think anyone actively "promotes" the expensive filters, I just think most will let people think what they want and just give them what they want..whether or not they "need" that option or not..
Is that my business motto? not even close..


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
microstar
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 01/05/08

Loc: Canada
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5572265 - 12/15/12 09:57 AM

Interesting thread, but with my Baader BCF in the mail for my mod I have no regrets and would make the same choice. I want to also be able to use my 450D with my 100mm Macro lens for nature photography with the custom WB and AF. Best of both worlds hopefully for not much additional cost (compared to what I spend on this hobby).
...Keith


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustinLT
member


Reged: 07/25/12

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: microstar]
      #5572612 - 12/15/12 01:25 PM

Brent,

after reading this thread, I found out, that I would have made the same mistake and would have been replaced my 1000D LFP-2 filter with Baader IR/UV cut filter (basically 2x UV/IR filters in the camera). Now I know that clear glass is perfectly fine (to get the autofocus). But I still have 2 questions:

1. Is daylight photography still possible with custom wb, if I use a clear glass?
2. I just got an interesting idea into my head: if I could make a plastic plate, that would fit beyond the bayonet mount (same shape as astronomic clip), also if I could remove the without damaging the LPF-2 filter and get it shaped to fit into the plastic plate, would it be possible to use it as a WB filter? Basically everything the same as in basic camera, only different position of LPF-2 filter and one more clear glass in it's place. This way the only expenses would be the clear glass and we could have a very versatile camera for daylight photography (the LPF-2 filter clipped in) and for astrophotography with h-alpha passing (LPF-2 filter removed). Anyway the astronomik or other WB filter are quite expensive (150-190$).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: JustinLT]
      #5573171 - 12/15/12 08:37 PM

Up to I know u can use a costom white balance in order to shoot at day time. Also u can use a filter infrin of the lense.
About your idea I was thinking the same thing... But in my case I'll use the camera just for astrophotography.. I'll get a Nikon Canon lense adapter to shoot some infrared or some night sky shoot.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5573285 - 12/15/12 09:43 PM

I will chime in here. Brent's assertion that the LPF#1 blocks IR is correct. But the question is, is it enough by itself? Gary's test with IR LED's (and it is indeed a proper practical test) does conclusively show that it lets through a considerable amount of IR light when used by itself, which is greatly reduced when used in concert with a Baader or Astrodon replacement for LPF#2. All astronomical instruments that are refractive in nature (virtually all but a true Newtonian telescope with ONLY mirror elements) will benefit from having IR blocked as completely as possible because of chromatic abberation inherent in all refractive optical systems. Any IR light getting through a lens will come to focus at a different point than visible light because of its longer wavelength...resulting in bloated star images. Star images can be bloated a lot, or just a little. If you are looking for the tightest possible star images, then complete and thorough IR rejection should be a priority. Replacing LPF#2 with nothing results in a camera unable to focus to infinity with normal lenses, inaccurate autofocus, and less IR rejection than the stock camera had. Replacing it with clear glass can fix the focus problem IF it is of the correct thickness (which is very critical) or the sensor platform position adjusted to compensate (which, again, is very critical), but the glass has to be coated with a good quality anti-reflection coating or halos around bright stars will result. Clear glass does nothing for the loss of IR rejection. Replacing LFP#2 with an astronomical UV/IR blocker such as the Baader or Astrodon takes care of both issues. Astrodon filters are widely used in high-end CCD cameras and highly respected for their exceptional anti-reflective coatings. The DSLR replacement filter has that same coating.

If one is content to do with less than optimal IR rejection and is willing to give up imaging with lenses due to the focus issues, then the simple removal of LPF#2 may be all that you need. Personally, I am a bit more critical than that and I think that my astrophotography shows it. LPF#2 is more than just a color balance filter...it has very significant IR rejection that is required in a stock camera to allow the autofocus system to not be fooled by IR light getting through and coming to focus at a different position from chromatic abberation. Canon didn't raise the cost of their cameras in a competitive market by putting in an expensive filter for nothing. By replacing LPF#2 with a true astronomical filter, IR rejection is maximized ensuring the tightest possible star images, the proper back focus is retained, and high quality anti-reflective coatings are in place...at a price not significantly above an inexpensive clear glass substitute when the entire modification cost is taken into consideration.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/15/12 10:10 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5573349 - 12/15/12 10:36 PM

Brent's test page shows on his tests of the 1000D how much IR blocking the combination of LPF#1 and LPF#2 provides in that the hot stove eye is completely invisible. However, with LPF#2 removed and only LPF#1 in place, the IR from the stove eye is coming through clearly. LPF#2 is obviously providing a huge amount of IR blocking.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/15/12 10:38 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5573526 - 12/16/12 01:40 AM Attachment (22 downloads)

Quote:

Brent's test page shows on his tests of the 1000D how much IR blocking the combination of LPF#1 and LPF#2 provides in that the hot stove eye is completely invisible. However, with LPF#2 removed and only LPF#1 in place, the IR from the stove eye is coming through clearly. LPF#2 is obviously providing a huge amount of IR blocking.




First, sorry for the confusion, that is NOT my test/images.etc..just a link I supplied..not my work..

Now. back OT..

No it doesnt..the images clearly show:
1) system with both LPF-1 and LPF-2(stock camera) clearly block 100% IR
2) both *LPF-1 only* -AND- *Baader only* setups block about the same amount of IR, ~90% IR, when compared to the UNfiltered image.

The ****POINT**** (my point) in (linking to) that test was to show that with JUST the Baader filter, there is still an IDENTICAL amount of IR data that passes vs an LPF-1 only system...
Look at the image of the Baader only system, and then the one with only LPF-1...looks like the same image. same amount of IR is being passed.
SO..why use the Baader if LPF-1 does the EXACT same amount of blocking? that's it..

Also, why does things like the attached image show up every once and a while showing that LPF-1 performs NEARLY/identical to a Baader+LPF-1 setup or an AstroDon+LPF-1 setup???


I just do not understand...



cheers..


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustinLT
member


Reged: 07/25/12

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5573741 - 12/16/12 08:41 AM

According to this graph Baader IR/UV filter does not change anything at all. Astrodon filter cuts a very slight amount of green and also a small amount of IR, actually in the same wavelenght as stock filter. I don't think it can be noticed in the picture (but who knows).
Now the issue is only with the clear glass, which is also very expensive and not too much cheaper than IR/UV filter.

Now my conclusion would be following: best option if you want to get top results for a budget price is to buy a canon 350d (it will be quite cheaper than 450d or you can buy even a faulty one without autofocus or with broken lcd screen)and modify it with Baader BCF IR/UV filter. It would be even worthy to make a cooling case as Gary Honis has done as in this camera there is no live view, so basically you can do everything via laptop. With 450d it would be a pitty to lose live view, as it is really useful.
Of course this is only my opinion. Maybe some people will prefer the larger megapixel amount in 450d.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike C
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 03/05/08

Loc: Cornwall, UK
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: JustinLT]
      #5574089 - 12/16/12 12:26 PM Attachment (42 downloads)

I've found this a very interesting thread, as I've just had a Canon 600D modified here in the UK. Although I cannot contribute to the technical discussion, I can relate my experience.

The camera has the LPF-2 filter removed, not replaced with anything. I did not expect any problems with infra-red, but my experience has been different - at least when there are bright stars in the field.

Below is a test frame of the Pleiades, with minimum processing. I did not continue taking subs due to the red disks around the stars, which I took to be out-of-focus infrared. I was using an apo. refractor.

I've since bought a 2-inch Baader UV/IR block filter, which I'm hoping will make a difference and improve my results when there are bright stars. Having read this thread, I am not so sure! The Baader packaging says it blocks infrared above 680 nm, which sounds more effective than the internal Baader the posted graph refers to. The next clear night, whenever that may be, will tell!

Regards,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JustinLT
member


Reged: 07/25/12

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Mike C]
      #5574128 - 12/16/12 12:55 PM

Mike,

your image causes even more confusion now, but it is a really great proof. But again, it gives only few more questions:

1) Is the filter system in canon 600D the same as in 450d, 1000d, etc.
2) If so, is there a possibility, that LPF-1 filter was removed as well? Maybe it is a full spectrum mod?

If the answers would be yes and no, then I suppose Hap Griffin was right and LPF-1 filter still passes some amount of unwanted infra-red. Well, according to the graph, the stock camera cuts IR light exactly at 700 nm and LPF-1 cuts IR light at approx 720 nm, so at least 0.05% of it comes thorugh. I don't know if it is possible, that it would cause red disks around the start. But in this case, only astrodon filter would work, Baaded filter cuts the light at same wavelenght as LPF-1 filter.
This is really interesting topic and more tests are needed for sure.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: JustinLT]
      #5574196 - 12/16/12 01:50 PM

Remember that in the stock system, or one with LPF#1 still in place and LPF#2 replaced with a Baader or Astrodon filter that the IR attenuation of both filters is in play...if as the graph shows, LPF#1 is down to about 1% transmission at 700 nm, then with LPF#2 replaced with a Baader or Astrodon which are down to 1% with the Baader and less than 1% with the Astrodon, that the equivalent IR rejection is the product of the two...0.01 x 0.01 = 0.0001. In other words, without replacing LPF#2 with another IR reject filter, you have around 100 times more IR getting through...which as shown in Mike's image above is sufficient to cause bloated stars from the chromatic abberation inherent in refractive systems...even in very high quality APO scopes that are not corrected for IR light. If one wants to take the inexpensive route and not replace LPF#2 with anything, or with clear glass, then that is their perogative...but as shown in Mike's image above, image quality will suffer. As for me, imaging time under a dark sky is valuable and I want the best chance of having a positive outcome from the time I get to spend imaging.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/16/12 01:57 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5574215 - 12/16/12 01:59 PM

Mike, your image is a good example of IR star bloating. May I use it in my talks on the subject, of course with credit being given to you?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike C
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 03/05/08

Loc: Cornwall, UK
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5574582 - 12/16/12 06:10 PM

Justin and Hap, thanks for your responses.

Just to clarify, I did order a modification with Baader replacement from the UK vendor. However, the mod was taking longer than I wanted and a subsequent conversation led to me settling for a straight removal of the main filter, leaving the other in place. I can only assume that this is what was done, as I have not discussed the IR issue with the vendor. I am pleased with the modification overall, and am hopeful that the Baader IR/UV-cut filter I've purchased will solve the IR problem.

Hap, for this reason, although you are welcome to use my Pleiades image to illustrate the problem of IR not being filtered adequately, I'd prefer not to be credited!

Regards,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Mike C]
      #5574585 - 12/16/12 06:11 PM

I understand. Thanks!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5574691 - 12/16/12 07:50 PM

Mike, your image shows a LOT of IR star bloat.
I have never seen an LPF-1 only system show that much star bloat..even on bright stars, like in the HH and Flame FOV...

I dont think something is right here...but that is just imho..

I will be interested to see what happens with the external IR Block..

Hap..dont you think you should figure out exactly what is going on in this guys camera before using it as "proof" that an LPF-1 only system does not reject enough IR???

Also..so are you telling us that LPF-1 and a Baader/AstroDon is 100x better at blocking IR than an LPF-1 only system?
Really? 0.01% vs 0.0001%?
yep. LPF-1 only is absolutely dreadful and no one should use it.

Edited by nofxrx (12/16/12 08:17 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
austin.grant
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 10/18/10

Loc: Shreveport, LA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5574706 - 12/16/12 08:06 PM

Before this gets locked, I'd like to add that that does seem like an extraordinary amount of bloat. My LPF-1 only 1000d never showed any symptoms of star bloat with refractive optics.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: austin.grant]
      #5574709 - 12/16/12 08:11 PM

Quote:

Before this gets locked, I'd like to add that that does seem like an extraordinary amount of bloat. My LPF-1 only 1000d never showed any symptoms of star bloat with refractive optics.




I am so glad someone else thought so...I was beginning to think I am crazy..
wait. nope. still crazy

Why would the thread get locked?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5574728 - 12/16/12 08:29 PM

Brent, when you put two filters in series, each with a transmission of, let's say, 1% at a particular IR wavelength...then, yes, the two together will pass 1% of 1%, which is 100 times more attenuation than through a single filter. Your detailed picture of the stove eye through an LPF#1 only mod on a 1000D shows clearly that a very significant amount of IR gets through it, as does Gary's test with IR LED's.

Filters in series act similarly to RF attenuators in series (for all the hams and RF engineers out there). A 10 dB attenuator drops the power at its input down to 10% of its value at its output. Putting two 10dB attenuators in series gives 20 dB total attenuation of the power, or 1/100th of the input power. In other words, putting two filters in series doesn't just double the attenuation...the equivalent attenuation is the mathematical product of the two attenuations.

As for Mike's image, I can only go on what he says was done to his camera. In any case, it is an obvious demonstration of IR caused star bloating.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/16/12 08:41 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5574752 - 12/16/12 08:45 PM

The Pleiades (M45) is a great test for both star bloat and reflection halos...it has relatively bright stars which stress the IR attenuation of filters and the anti-reflection coatings. M45 is the target that clearly showed a faulty AR coating on one of my CCD filters once. And the blue stars will expose IR bloat as red (as in Mike's image) since IR shows up mainly in the red channel.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5574817 - 12/16/12 09:29 PM

Okay, that makes a lot more sense..seriously.

But, I still do not see that amount of difference in transmission makes images like Mike's...but, I could be wrong.

Again, I go back to the facts that I know, that MANY people who use an LPF-1 only system experience little or NO IR star bloat..


I too have had many issues with reflections on objects like M45..maybe this is also attributing to Mike's issue..?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5574883 - 12/16/12 10:12 PM

That's why I chose Astrodon LRGB filters for my CCD. Unlike other brands, they do not exhibit reflections on M45 or other bright stars. Looking at images of M45 across the web, you can see that other lines of filters do commonly exhibit reflections. Your reflection problems make me wonder what type of coating the Edmunds clear glass has.

As for star bloat, I'd like to see some examples of LPF-1 only cameras with bright stars in the field. As I said before, you can have a lot of star bloat due to IR leakage, or just a little, depending on the brightness of the star, its IR signature and the amount of IR rejection in the system. Personally, I want to ensure that I have the most IR rejection possible so that I know that I'm not allowing my star images to be any larger than they are naturally.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5574898 - 12/16/12 10:23 PM

Also, you mention that some people experience little star bloat and that the difference of a few percent may not be noticeable. Bare in mind that we're talking about transmission numbers that determine the photons picked up by the sensor and becoming image data prior to contrast stretching. We often use curves and DDP in processing our images that will take an initial few percent difference in brightness in different areas of an image and stretch it into a much larger range so as to make it visible. So even if we only have a few ADU of star bloat in the RAW, by the time we stretch the histogram to a final presentation level, it can become very visible. So the appearance of IR effects is dependent on processing style and extent of histogram stretching.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/16/12 10:27 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5575014 - 12/17/12 12:06 AM

Quote:

So even if we only have a few ADU of star bloat in the RAW, by the time we stretch the histogram to a final presentation level, it can become very visible. So the appearance of IR effects is dependent on processing style and extent of histogram stretching.




Actually, this makes a lot of sense to me! Good point


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
gdd
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 11/23/05

Loc: N Seattle suburb, WA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5575020 - 12/17/12 12:13 AM

Quote:

Also, you mention that some people experience little star bloat and that the difference of a few percent may not be noticeable.




Is it also possible some refractive OTA's are better corrected in the IR than others?

Gale


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5575105 - 12/17/12 02:02 AM

Quote:

As for Mike's image, I can only go on what he says was done to his camera. In any case, it is an obvious demonstration of IR caused star bloating.




Hap, we are talking science and Mike's image is an uncontrolled test and/or for that matter an uncontrolled mod. I am for using empirical evidence before hastening to the point of citing it. To be fair, at this point I don’t think we have countered Brent’s point of replacing LPF-2 with expensive alternatives being wasteful science, if not the money. Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LeCarl
super member


Reged: 03/16/11

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5575107 - 12/17/12 02:05 AM

To nofxrx

I'm totally agree (about the LPF-1) and...
I know, I know, (yes I learn something haha! )
But Primary! just want to keep this simple...
(I have experiences with peoples/material that don't want astrophotography complicated,
perfect sky balance at each shot, this is why we
choose the Happ's astrodon or baader filter, we found that full spectrum with filter is risky,
and mess a lot of nights, time, money... this is why we choose the DSLR...
(full spectrum for a first camera?...)

Just to say to don't forget about the distance for focusing on focusing,
Aboy wants to use his nikons lens with an adapter... full spectrum, (no glass/LPF-1) will not work, focussing distance will not be good


The cost/bill of material is near the same full spectrum or not...
(if done by yourself, because not complicated...)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: LeCarl]
      #5575270 - 12/17/12 07:18 AM

Quote:

Just to say to don't forget about the distance for focusing on focusing,
Aboy wants to use his nikons lens with an adapter... full spectrum, (no glass/LPF-1) will not work, focussing distance will not be good






Yes. I'll use an adapter.. But up to I know it's possible to use it manual, that is in theory.. But I'll find out in real life soon.

Ps. I am learning a lot with this thread

Edited by Aboy (12/17/12 07:21 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5575506 - 12/17/12 10:45 AM

Quote:

Quote:

As for Mike's image, I can only go on what he says was done to his camera. In any case, it is an obvious demonstration of IR caused star bloating.




Hap, we are talking science and Mike's image is an uncontrolled test and/or for that matter an uncontrolled mod. I am for using empirical evidence before hastening to the point of citing it. To be fair, at this point I don’t think we have countered Brent’s point of replacing LPF-2 with expensive alternatives being wasteful science, if not the money. Regards




Agreed. I'd like to see more images taken with LPF#1 only modified cameras through refractive systems with bright stars in them. As for the money, as I said before, the difference between a clear glass mod and a Baader or Astrodon mod is minimal when compared to the entire cost of the modification and shipping and the value of your imaging time if you find, as Mike did, that you have IR induced star bloat (which is what his image really looks like). Like I stated before, we spend lots of time and money on our scopes, mounts, observatories, travelling to dark sky sites, etc. If we want the absolute most pinpoint star images that our optics are capable of, we need to minimize IR leakage. The stock Canon's have two layers of IR rejection. By removing one of them, you are leaving the camera with less IR rejection than it had in stock condition. Brent's test image of a stove eye that is invisible with both LPF#1 and LPF#2 in place, yet is clearly visible with only LPF#1 in place shows that IR light definitely goes through LPF#1 in amounts sufficent to make a clear photograph. Do you want to have that amount of IR reaching your sensor? It's up to you.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/17/12 11:01 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike C
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 03/05/08

Loc: Cornwall, UK
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5575858 - 12/17/12 03:00 PM

Sorry my post was not as informative as I had hoped! I am told that the main filter was to be removed, and not the second (LPF-1 in the terminology used here); however I cannot prove what was done.

Regarding Brent's suggestion that reflections could be partly to blame, I'm hopeful this is not the case. I have imaged the Pleiades with the same 'scope and CLS filter previously, though with a different (and unmodded) camera, with no internal reflection issues.

I'm looking forward to trying out the 2" Baader IR/UV-cut, but alas there is no clear sky on the radar at the moment.

Regards,

Edited by Mike C (12/17/12 03:52 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Mike C]
      #5576262 - 12/17/12 07:19 PM

Quote:

I am told that the main filter was to be removed, and not the second (LPF-1 in the terminology used here)




Mike, sorry, but you are repeating the ambiguity most of us are trying to avoid. There is no such thing as "main filter" and your sentence is confusing at best as to which one was removed, LPF-1 or LPF-2?

Please confirm with a statement, e.g., “LPF-2 was removed, although you are doubtful”. Thx


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5576299 - 12/17/12 07:47 PM

One way to tell if LPF#1 is installed is to see if the camera is doing a dust cleaning when you turn it off. If it is and isn't throwing an error code, then LPF#1 is probably in place. If the "front filter", otherwise known as LPF#1, is not in place and the camera is set to do automatic dust cleanings, it should generate an error code ( I know it does with some models).

You can tell if LPF#2 has been removed by setting the automatic white balance to daylight and shooting a JPEG of an outdoor scene. If the overall tint is reddish, then LPF#2 is missing.

Mike, please do these tests and let us know the outcomes and we will have a better idea of the actual status of your camera.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/17/12 08:06 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike C
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 03/05/08

Loc: Cornwall, UK
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5576920 - 12/18/12 08:20 AM

mmalik: LPF-2 removed; LPF-1 still in place. Hope that makes more sense

Hap: I do have the overall red tinge to daylight shots, and am getting good results with emission nebulae imaging, e.g
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28745090@N02/8275392709/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28745090@N02/8268345546/in/photostream/
Note that both of these display the red disks around the bright stars that I believe to be due to IR.

The self-cleaning routine on the camera works when I switch it on and off (or at least it does not display an error message).

Regards,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Mike C]
      #5577216 - 12/18/12 12:15 PM

OK, that sounds pretty definitively that you have LPF#1 still in place and LPF#2 removed. So, evidently LPF#1 by itself is not providing sufficient IR attenuation to prevent star bloating.

Thank you for the additional images with the bright stars. The fact that the bloating is in the red channel is pretty conclusive that the issue is IR related.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/18/12 12:18 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vmsguy
sage


Reged: 01/09/07

Loc: West Virginia
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5577594 - 12/18/12 05:03 PM


Hi,
I'm the "Brent" that did the stovetop tests.

My T1i and another T1i I modded for my friend Jeff Ball, don't show star bloat. Both are the LPF#1 only mod (LPF#1 filter left in camera, LPF#2 removed with no replacement filter)

I can only speak from my experience, but using my relatively low-end imaging gear (Nikkor lenses), I don't see adverse affects of IR related star bloat. Maybe the Nikkors are well corrected for IR.

Now Jeff, on the otherhand has high-end APO gear that probably corrects well for IR, and his images don't show IR bloat issues either.

So, what does this mean. For me, I'm replacing my T1i with a T3i that I will be modding soon. I will remove LPF#2 and
leave only the LPF#1 in place, but before doing so, I will try to perform additional test of before and after to add more "data" to this discussion.

I may repeat the "stovetop" test, and throw in some additional IR remotes that may be transmitting at different wavelengths. I also have a B+W 486 IR filter, A Baader IR 1.25" filter, and an original Baader BCF filter that I will use in the tests to see what results I get using different IR filters.

I will also take series of star images with the T3i before mod
and repeat using the same setup after mod to see if star bloat is apparent.

For other users with different optical systems, the results may be different, so take that into consideration when I post the results.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mikotoy
super member


Reged: 06/20/12

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: vmsguy]
      #5577763 - 12/18/12 06:53 PM

I'm presuming that it is entirely possible to remove LPF2 and if the star bloat is experienced to go back and install a secondary filter (Astronomik, Baader, Asrtrodon ...etc) at a later time without affecting the camera further?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mikotoy]
      #5577781 - 12/18/12 07:10 PM

Quote:

I'm presuming that it is entirely possible to remove LPF2 and if the star bloat is experienced to go back and install a secondary filter (Astronomik, Baader, Asrtrodon ...etc) at a later time without affecting the camera further?




Yes, that's one school of thought per discussion thus far. Thx


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5578029 - 12/18/12 10:25 PM

Note as stated before, the amount of star bloat will be magnified by contrast stretching that is the standard processing procedure in astrophotography. So any A/B test will have to have the processing carefully duplicated so that the final results will have the SAME amount of histogram stretching. I'm suspecting that this may be at least some of the difference why some people are experiencing it and others don't see it...differences in processing. I see many imagers, especially those just starting out, with the low end of the histogram crushed...that is, the dark areas are crushed into a black background. If star bloat is present, it may not come through in these images. In Mike's images, he has processed to preserve the faint detail which will also bring out low level IR related artifacts.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/18/12 10:30 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gary Honis
Vendor-DSLR Mods


Reged: 12/15/04

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5578271 - 12/19/12 01:25 AM

I agree with Hap's comments. When I first started imaging with a Full Spectrum modified 300D in 2004, I wasn't using a UV/IR cut filter when imaging with a ShortTube 80 refractor. I was very happy with my images until someone commented that my stars seemed bloated. I added a 2" Baader UV/IR cut filter and I got tighter stars. I don't know how much I was loosing in image detail.

I have done many tests over time showing that the original Canon front filter of the newer two-filter models by itself does not fully block infrared. A still image test comparing the front filter only of a 1000D (XS)camera to a Baader BCF-1 DSLR replacement filter is HERE.

Today, I posted a YouTube video using a Full Spectrum modified camera to demonstrate how much more infrared light the original front filter passes than in a Baader (or Astrodon) modified camera. The YouTube video is HERE.

The front filter does not have a sharp cutoff at 700nm like the Baader or Astrodon filters. Baader has the transmission curve of the Baader BCF filter posted HERE. In the FILES section of DSLRmodifications there is a spectral curve by Ken Harrison that shows the front filter of a 1000D (XS) passes infrared above 700nm.

If you are imaging with a reflector, SCT or RC at prime and using a "front filter only" modified camera you should not have star bloat. Once you add a lens such as a reducer or barlow you will and would need to add an IR blocking filter.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Gary Honis]
      #5578625 - 12/19/12 09:35 AM

Thanks for the input, Gary.

Those of us who are offering filter modifications are not trying to sell an extra filter that customers don't need (except in very special cases) but a solution to the IR problem that has been demonstrated clearly by the test images shown in this thread. If you feel that the Canon LPF#1 by itself provides all the IR blocking that you need, that's fine and it's your choice. In my experienced opinion after having worked with television camera optics for 34 years, performing over 800 Canon DSLR modifications and having my DSLR astro images published in books and magazines, I feel that the most versatile modification that will ensure that your Canon DSLR can be used with any telescope you will ever get without resorting to external filters, is one that replaces LPF#2 with a true astronomical UV/IR filter.

Edited by Hap Griffin (12/19/12 09:38 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5578632 - 12/19/12 09:42 AM

Actually, Gary, my experience with imaging through a Schmidt-Cassagrain (Meade 10" LX-200) is that the front corrector plate being refractive in nature does indeed cause star bloat without effective IR filtering.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gary Honis
Vendor-DSLR Mods


Reged: 12/15/04

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5578691 - 12/19/12 10:28 AM

Thanks Hap,

I have been telling my customers that even though SCTs have a corrector lens up front, it is a weak lens and does a good job of focusing both infrared and visible (RGB) light to the same point. Also, that the Celestron SCTs are especially good in this regard since their correctors are a little thinner than those of Meade SCTs. Samir Kharusi on this page:

http://www.samirkharusi.net/spectrograph.html

..says this...

"Another common remark is that refractive optics need to be used with a UV/IR Blocker; true, but the corollary that SCTs also do because of their corrector plates is not true. The corrector plates are very weak "lenses" and in actual usage resolution is not impaired to any noticeable extent. In fact I got sharper images in planetary webcamming with no UV/IR blocker than with. Ditto with trying to image the 6 stars in the Trapezium or the zillions in M13 using the modded 20D. Do your own testing. The IR does allow you to use very short exposures, important in hi-res imaging, and you should not throw it away by blindly following weighty pronouncements by the Wise."

I have a 10" Meade LX200, so I could do some testing, but I haven't imaged with it in a very long time. Many have been buying the new HD versions of SCTs and with their extra lens elements, I would expect an IR blocking filter is needed. I'd rather be imaging than testing.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Gary Honis]
      #5578755 - 12/19/12 11:21 AM

That's how I found out way back in 2003 what IR bloat was...by imaging with a 300D with the filter removed through my LX-200 and seeing red rings around all the brighter stars. Adding in a Baader UV/IR filter cured it. I can only attribute it to the corrector plate since no other refractive elements were in the system.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LeCarl
super member


Reged: 03/16/11

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Aboy]
      #5579071 - 12/19/12 02:43 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Just to say to don't forget about the distance for focusing on focusing,
Aboy wants to use his nikons lens with an adapter... full spectrum, (no glass/LPF-1) will not work, focussing distance will not be good








Yes. I'll use an adapter.. But up to I know it's possible to use it manual, that is in theory.. But I'll find out in real life soon.

Ps. I am learning a lot with this thread




Aboy, I think you get your post stolen,

yes you will see that with lenses, focal distance without glass/filter is important
(don't be surprised if you can't focus) HAHA!

(someone disagree with that???)

Sadly, the people with so much experiences can give you a little advices?

Just received my nikkor 180mm ED F2.8 with canon adapter wow! focus like a charm! woooooo!

Edited by LeCarl (12/20/12 11:10 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gary Honis
Vendor-DSLR Mods


Reged: 12/15/04

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: LeCarl]
      #5579657 - 12/19/12 09:23 PM

LeCarl,

I do image with a Nikkor 180mm ED F2.8 camera lens using the Nikon to Canon EOS adapter. Some images with the Nikkor lens can be seen HERE. The lens has no problem reaching focus with my Full Spectrum and Baader Modified cameras. My Full Spectrum cameras use an Astronomik MC DSLR clear glass replacement so focus is not an issue. My guess is that if the Full Spectrum modification is one in which both original filters were removed and replaced with nothing, the lens will not reach focus at infinity for stars.

I'm sure you'll enjoy your new lens.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gary Honis
Vendor-DSLR Mods


Reged: 12/15/04

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5579834 - 12/19/12 11:31 PM

Quote:

Quote:



Here is an image showing the dual filter system used in 90% of newer models(ALL Canon from the 400D and newer, and most Nikons)





That image does not represent the "dual filter system used in 90% of newer models(ALL Canon from the 400D and newer".

That image shows the frontmost filter as the Infrared Absorption Glass which may be true in the Canon EOS 1D model but that is not the case in the Canon models 400D (Xti), 450D (XSi), 500D (T1i), 550D (T2i), 600D (T3i), 650D (T3i), 1000D (XS), 1100D (T3), 40D, 50D, 60D and 5D Mark II. In those models it is the second filter that is labeled by Canon as the "Infrared Absorption Glass". A list of Canon Filter Diagrams for various Canon models with the correct labels by Canon is HERE.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Gary Honis]
      #5580125 - 12/20/12 06:34 AM

Quote:

If you are imaging with a reflector, SCT or RC at prime and using a "front filter only" modified camera you should not have star bloat.




Gary, are you implying that there will be star bloat with a refractor at prime focus and using "LPF-1 only" modified camera?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gary Honis
Vendor-DSLR Mods


Reged: 12/15/04

Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5580415 - 12/20/12 10:46 AM

Quote:

Gary, are you implying that there will be star bloat with a refractor at prime focus and using "LPF-1 only" modified camera?




Refractor telescopes and camera lenses are lens optical systems and much work and expense goes into focusing visible light (R,G, & B) to the same focus point. Starizona has a good "basics" explanation of how achromatics and well corrected apo refractors focus visible light HERE.

How well was your refractor or camera lens designed to focus infrared wavelengths to the same point as visible light? They most likely were not. On some old camera lenses, there was a red dot to indicate how much of a focus offset was needed from the visible light focus marks for those doing infrared photography using an infrared pass filter, such as the popular 720nm Hoya R72. 720nm is not that far away from the 700nm cutoff of Astro UV/IR blocking filters and the focus point of infrared at that wavelength can be quite different than for visible light in refractors and camera lenses.

You can easily check that using a Full Spectrum camera and the liveview display. What you will see is that if focus is moved in one direction, the infrared energy will be going out of focus as the visible light is coming into focus. This results in some level of star bloat and poor image resolution because there is no focus point at which both visible (R,G, & B) wavelengths and infrared wavelengths are both in focus. The resulting image is a compromise.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Gary Honis]
      #5581229 - 12/20/12 06:30 PM

Good description. Also, thanks for the convenient reference of the various Canon filter diagrams and labels. I have seen them all, but not in one place.

I hope that this thread has cleared up some of the misconceptions about the double filter system used by Canon and the effectiveness (or not) of the front low pass filter used for the dust cleaning function to act as an IR blocker. While it does attenuate IR to some extent, the images and demonstrations here clearly show that it is not nearly as effective at blocking IR as a true astronomical UV/IR filter.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5581484 - 12/20/12 09:22 PM

Quote:

Good description. Also, thanks for the convenient reference of the various Canon filter diagrams and labels. I have seen them all, but not in one place.

I hope that this thread has cleared up some of the misconceptions about the double filter system used by Canon and the effectiveness (or not) of the front low pass filter used for the dust cleaning function to act as an IR blocker. While it does attenuate IR to some extent, the images and demonstrations here clearly show that it is not nearly as effective at blocking IR as a true astronomical UV/IR filter.




Agreed, 100%!
BUT
Not everyone NEEDS that "true" Astronomical filter as many have already showed/stated..

SO..what are we left with?
Since it is completely unpractical to 'go for an LPF-1 only setup first, and then wait to see IF you do/do not need the Astro filter, and then send the camera for modification again, we should just recommend the Astro filters, and give the person the choice in saying SOME people do not need it.."??


Now Gary, you tested the newer Baader in that video, right??
BCF-1??

Because I did the same test, but with a Full Spectrum 5D2, and tested the newer BCF-1 and it was PERFECTLY BLACK, which is EXACTLY what the tests should show(as your's did as well)..but only WITH LPF-1 with it..otherwise a LITTLE IR still gets through..
BUT, the older Baader, the one from your other test that still showed some(IMHO a lot) IR getting through, that filter is NOT as effective, and I think this is where people have gotten the idea that there is not point to the Baader since the OLD Baader (FBCF-400D) performs a LOT like LPF-1...
So, with the new BCF-1 filter, I think we have a clear winner, and HOPEFULLY an end to the confusion as to which mod is best, the techno jargon, etc

I am still waiting for the new 5D Mark II filter...I think they discontinued it and are making a new one for it as well...hopefully, it will be the same as the BCF-1!
That would be so great and would open the door for a LOT of other models, particularly Nikon, since the 5D2 filter fits nearly every Nikon model made(even their APS-C models! they use VERY large filters)..

I should have my Canon/Baader Filter Test video up this weekend, along with written tutorials for:
Canon 5D Mark II/III
Canon 1D Mark III/IV
Canon 60D/7D
Nikon D3
Nikon D200/300/300s
Nikon D5100/5200/3100/3200
Nikon D700
Nikon D600
Nikon D800 (my current camera...and holy cow. nothing compares. period.. sorry Canon fanboys lol (dont worry, I was one myself two months ago ))

Oh wait...I have all the data but NO freakin time to actually put all of this together...
How do you guys find the time to do any of this stuff??lol


Cheers!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vmsguy
sage


Reged: 01/09/07

Loc: West Virginia
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5581864 - 12/21/12 04:31 AM


I did a few tests tonight on various filters to see
how well they block IR.

I still have a few more to do, in particular when I mod
my T3i, I will perform a similar test that I did on other
common UV/IR filters.

Here is a video showing the tests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDVxXkxBXSU

The result that may be important to folks that have
full spectrum mods, is that a Baader 1.25" UV/IR rejection filter, and a B+W 486 filter allow some amount of IR to be transmitted. If these filters in particular are used in the imaging train, then a small amount IR is passed. These are
the only UV/IR filters I own, so I'm not sure how other brands will behave.

I'm curious to see if the LPF#1 has similar characteristics
to the screw in Baader and B+W filters. I hope to do that test this weekend.

Brent (the other Brent)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5581967 - 12/21/12 07:32 AM

Quote:

So, with the new BCF-1 filter, I think we have a clear winner, and HOPEFULLY an end to the confusion as to which mod is best...




Per Gary's video and some searching... I did, following "seems" (corrections welcome...) the latest on Baader as LPF-2 replacement:

Baader-BCF (which Gary referred to as BCF1)
•For Canon EOS 7D/40D/50D/60D/400D/450D/500D/550D/600D/1000D/1100D

Baader-BCF2
•For Canon EOS 5D Mark II

In light of this information, few questions come to mind if anyone could answer:

1. What's the availability for Baader BCF1 & BCF2 filters as LPF-2 replacement; hence who among all is offering these NEW Baader mods at this time?

2. Hutech hasn't been discussed in this thread so far; Hutech website... refers to LPF-2 replacement as 'Astronomical Filter'; I am wondering what kind of LPF-2 filter Hutech has been using in the past and/or are going to use in future. In other words, does Hutech fall under Baader umbrella when it comes to LPF-2 replacement or do they use something proprietary?

3. What's on the horizon for Canon EOS 5D Mark III and 6D when it comes to 'latest' Baader as LPF-2 replacement offerings? These seem to be missing in action.

Thx


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5582619 - 12/21/12 02:47 PM

Quote:


1. What's the availability for Baader BCF1 & BCF2 filters as LPF-2 replacement; hence who among all is offering these NEW Baader mods at this time?




AFAIK everyone does. I have only been receiving the NEW filters from Alpine Astro(which SHOULD be where everyone gets their Baader filters from...?) for months now...I have not seen an old one in quite some time.

Quote:

2. Hutech hasn't been discussed in this thread so far; Hutech website... refers to LPF-2 replacement as 'Astronomical Filter'; I am wondering what kind of LPF-2 filter Hutech has been using in the past and/or are going to use in future. In other words, does Hutech fall under Baader umbrella when it comes to LPF-2 replacement or do they use something proprietary?




No clue. Most everyone I know that has Hutech cameras live overseas and I have never seen one myself...nor asked anyone about them...maybe someone else can answer this one?

Quote:

3. What's on the horizon for Canon EOS 5D Mark III and 6D when it comes to 'latest' Baader as LPF-2 replacement offerings? These seem to be missing in action.




No, I dont think they are missing at all....
The Filter for the 5D Mark II WILL fit/work/operate just as perfectly for the 5D Mark III and the 6D...it also fits the 1Ds Mark I-III....so unless Canon does some major changes to the 5D Mark IV, or the 6D Mark II, the new Baader 5DII filter should work perfectly for every Full Frame offering from Canon...
OH, AND from Nikon.
I have done a TON of Nikon mods and they use the Baader filters just as well. They require a bit more effort than Canons do to keep AF calibration and everything working smoothly

If Baader uses the new BCF-1 design/characteristics for the new 5D Mark II/III/6D filter, we should be 100% good to go with using it as the "standard"..

IMHO..


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5582804 - 12/21/12 04:46 PM

Quote:

If Baader uses the new BCF-1 design/characteristics for the new 5D Mark II/III/6D filter, we should be 100% good to go with using it as the "standard"..




Thanks Brent; you use the word 'If' and hence missed part of my question. As I mentioned above, there is BCF2 for 5D Mark II; please see this... info. So let me rephrase the question...

•What's the availability for Baader-BCF2 filter as LPF-2 replacement for Canon EOS 5D Mark II; hence who among all is offering this NEW Baader mod at this time for 5D Mark II (and for that matter 5D Mark III & 6D as well)?

•While we are on the subject, is this... BCF2 or older version for 5D Mark II?

Edited by mmalik (12/21/12 04:59 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5583390 - 12/21/12 11:36 PM

Quote:

Quote:

If Baader uses the new BCF-1 design/characteristics for the new 5D Mark II/III/6D filter, we should be 100% good to go with using it as the "standard"..




Thanks Brent; you use the word 'If' and hence missed part of my question. As I mentioned above, there is BCF2 for 5D Mark II; please see this... info. So let me rephrase the question...

•What's the availability for Baader-BCF2 filter as LPF-2 replacement for Canon EOS 5D Mark II; hence who among all is offering this NEW Baader mod at this time for 5D Mark II (and for that matter 5D Mark III & 6D as well)?

•While we are on the subject, is this... BCF2 or older version for 5D Mark II?




I didnt really miss the question, I thought I answered it, or atleast was under the impression you were on the same page as I was, my mistake, sorry!

To answer the question (again, but hopefully 'properly' this time):
No. Baader DOES NOT have a new filter out for the 5D Mark II, **YET**!!

In fact, if you didnt know any better, when looking at Alpine Astro's site, I cannot see ANY difference in the advertisement/info/etc for the FBCF-400D filter, which is NOW (apparently) been replaced with this new BCF-1.
The new filter's box JUST says "BCF-1", not "FBCF-400D" like the OLD filter's box label.
But the website still says "FBCF-400D".
SO...my guess is:
1) they have not updated the site
2) they simply replaced the old filter for a newer/better one, and didnt see the need to 'justify' it to the masses
3)....?

I mean, who knows? maybe Hap or Gary have heard a bit more about this??


Just so no confusion, MY answer to your questions:

1) Technically, right this second the FBCF-5DII filter is OUT OF STOCK, but my rep says they have no clue when they will be back in stock. I think everyone is able to offer the FBCF-5DII atm...atleast, I have 2 left in my stock..
And let's not forget, that just because the CURRENT 5DII filter does NOT block a lot of IR, but WHEN USED WITH LPF-1 you get brilliant spectral coverage and blocking in the UV/IR...
my point is I would not wait to see what happens with the new filter(s) if you are looking for a mod..there is always a new model coming out, and there is zero guarantee that it will be better than the old version!

1.5 & 2) I do NOT think the filter in the link is to the NEW filter. so again, until they are back in stock again at Alpine we will not know if it is the same filter or a newer/better one...

Unfortunately, that isnt a solid reply/answer for you..but that's all I got ATM..sorry.

I think we will be fine though..
We have the new BCF-1 for every APS-C body Canon AND Nikon make..
And soon, HOPEFULLY, a new BCF-1FF(for Full Frame, maybe? ) for all Full Frame Canon and Nikon bodies.
Oh, and yes. They are also usable for Sony(DSLR and NEX systems), and a few other brands.
It is crazy, but Canon mods only occupy maybe 55-60% of my business in the last 6 months..
ANd I think that is a great thing. Nikon deserves to have as much recognition in the AP community as Canon does. both have downright brilliant systems.
But Nikon seems to be puting a LOT more time/$/effort into their sensors....even though IMHO they just buy them from Sony LOL


Sorry. rambling again..
Cheers


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5583601 - 12/22/12 05:16 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If Baader uses the new BCF-1 design/characteristics for the new 5D Mark II/III/6D filter, we should be 100% good to go with using it as the "standard"..




Thanks Brent; you use the word 'If' and hence missed part of my question. As I mentioned above, there is BCF2 for 5D Mark II; please see this... info. So let me rephrase the question...

•What's the availability for Baader-BCF2 filter as LPF-2 replacement for Canon EOS 5D Mark II; hence who among all is offering this NEW Baader mod at this time for 5D Mark II (and for that matter 5D Mark III & 6D as well)?

•While we are on the subject, is this... BCF2 or older version for 5D Mark II?




I didnt really miss the question, I thought I answered it, or atleast was under the impression you were on the same page as I was, my mistake, sorry!

To answer the question (again, but hopefully 'properly' this time):
No. Baader DOES NOT have a new filter out for the 5D Mark II, **YET**!!

In fact, if you didnt know any better, when looking at Alpine Astro's site, I cannot see ANY difference in the advertisement/info/etc for the FBCF-400D filter, which is NOW (apparently) been replaced with this new BCF-1.
The new filter's box JUST says "BCF-1", not "FBCF-400D" like the OLD filter's box label.
But the website still says "FBCF-400D".
SO...my guess is:
1) they have not updated the site
2) they simply replaced the old filter for a newer/better one, and didnt see the need to 'justify' it to the masses
3)....?

I mean, who knows? maybe Hap or Gary have heard a bit more about this??


Just so no confusion, MY answer to your questions:

1) Technically, right this second the FBCF-5DII filter is OUT OF STOCK, but my rep says they have no clue when they will be back in stock. I think everyone is able to offer the FBCF-5DII atm...atleast, I have 2 left in my stock..
And let's not forget, that just because the CURRENT 5DII filter does NOT block a lot of IR, but WHEN USED WITH LPF-1 you get brilliant spectral coverage and blocking in the UV/IR...
my point is I would not wait to see what happens with the new filter(s) if you are looking for a mod..there is always a new model coming out, and there is zero guarantee that it will be better than the old version!

1.5 & 2) I do NOT think the filter in the link is to the NEW filter. so again, until they are back in stock again at Alpine we will not know if it is the same filter or a newer/better one...

Unfortunately, that isnt a solid reply/answer for you..but that's all I got ATM..sorry.

I think we will be fine though..
We have the new BCF-1 for every APS-C body Canon AND Nikon make..
And soon, HOPEFULLY, a new BCF-1FF(for Full Frame, maybe? ) for all Full Frame Canon and Nikon bodies.
Oh, and yes. They are also usable for Sony(DSLR and NEX systems), and a few other brands.
It is crazy, but Canon mods only occupy maybe 55-60% of my business in the last 6 months..
ANd I think that is a great thing. Nikon deserves to have as much recognition in the AP community as Canon does. both have downright brilliant systems.
But Nikon seems to be puting a LOT more time/$/effort into their sensors....even though IMHO they just buy them from Sony LOL




Thanks Brent; here is the sum up (corrections/updates welcome)

LPF-2 Replacement Options (Baader)......Old/Current......New
Canon EOS APS-C.....................................FBCF-400D.........BCF1 [?BCF1 still listed as FBCF-400D]
Canon EOS Full Frame................................FBCF-5DII..........BCF2 [?BCF2 neither listed nor available]


Note:
•APS-C = [7D/40D/50D/60D/400D/450D/500D/550D/600D/1000D/1100D]
•Full Frame = [5D Mark II/5D Mark III/6D]

References:
"http://www.baader-planetarium.de/sektion/s45/s45.htm#afc1"
"http://www.alpineastro.com/filters/filters.htm#DSLR Filters"
"http://www.alpineastro.com/product_listing.htm#filters"
"http://www.adorama.com/AA2459213.html"
"http://www.adorama.com/AA2459214A.html"

Edited by mmalik (12/22/12 05:18 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5584202 - 12/22/12 02:34 PM

Looks good to me..

But I would add the 5D Mark III, and 6D to the Canon EOS Full Frame options for the FBCF-5DII..it works perfectly, trust me
And again, that is ONLY for Canon models. Nikons can easily use the exact same filters for either APS-C or Full Frame..fwiw


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5584479 - 12/22/12 06:22 PM Attachment (23 downloads)

Quite presumptuous MOD business is in my opinion ; not questions per se, just my dismay...

•So we are to "presume" FBCF-400D is 'now' actually BCF1?
•Not sure what to make of the "NEW" tag next to FBCF-5DII; new of the old, i.e., FBCF-5DII or new of the new, i.e., BCF2?
•What so called "Astronomical filter" Hutech uses remains a mystery, unless someone can solve?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5585566 - 12/23/12 12:56 PM

Quote:

Quite presumptuous MOD business is in my opinion ; not questions per se, just my dismay...

•So we are to "presume" FBCF-400D is 'now' actually BCF1?
•Not sure what to make of "NEW" tag next to FBCF-5DII; new of the old, i.e., FBCF-5DII or new of the new, i.e., BCF2?
•What so called "Astronomical filter" Hutech uses remains a mystery, unless someone can solve?




Not sure what to make of your presumptuous comment, so will leave that alone


1) Yes. AFAIK. I think they just have not updated the site....or, like I theorized before, perhaps they wanted to keep the new filter designs/replacement somewhat less publicized since they now actually block 100% IR(with LPF-1). Maybe they just decided to update the product, and it wasnt something they wanted to 'share with the world' the who/what/where/when/why/and hows..

2) It has said "NEW" for a looong time now...atleast a year or more...
I dont think it has anything to do with them having an actual new filter/design out to replace the previous FBCF-5DII...


3) No clue what Hutech uses. My guess would be a UIBAR(whatever that is. lol), which they make/buy themselves..I dont see them using Baader/AstroDon, but that is just my guess..
they might though, since it may be cheaper to use the Baader options vs outsourcing their own special cut sized filters..(I know, I have tried myself..granted I think they are JUST a bit larger of a company than I am ..so they could afford the initial investments, but why? if the product is already made and well liked by the community, just use it...)
but again, just a guess..
(my "source" for this info: HERE )
EDIT- Looking at the specs of the UIBAR filter HERE I think it looks better than the Baader and AstroDon, particularly the in-band reflectivity, but that is just my opinion..

Edited by nofxrx (12/23/12 12:59 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5586103 - 12/23/12 06:30 PM

Quote:

No clue what Hutech uses. My guess would be a UIBAR(whatever that is. lol), which they make/buy themselves...I don’t see them using Baader/Astrodon, but that is just my guess..
they might though, since it may be cheaper to use the Baader options vs. outsourcing their own special cut sized filters..(I know, I have tried myself...granted I think they are JUST a bit larger of a company than I am: lol: ..so they could afford the initial investments, but why? If the product is already made and well-liked by the community, just use it...)
but again, just a guess..
(my "source" for this info: HERE )
EDIT- Looking at the specs of the UIBAR filter HERE I think it looks better than the Baader and Astrodon, particularly the in-band reflectivity, but that is just my opinion..




Brent, thanks and your feedback is greatly appreciated by all, if I may say.

Correct me if I may be off base here; when it comes to APS-C mods, most mods may be at par with Hutech’s; I feel Hutech may have an advantage when it comes to Full Frame mods for the reasons you cite/speculate. Also this gentleman in Japan (Seo San...) is offering mods that seem to be at par with Hutech’s, when it comes to the AP filter quality. Canon itself seems to have offered an AP filter in the form of 60Da that seems to be superior than mods [don't want to get into that debate...] and especially, one that’s not plagued by reflection and other anomalies. I can’t decipher all the details on Seo’s web page since it is in Japanese [would appreciate if some on can, Google Translate makes it worse], my point being if Seo San and Hutech can offer the filters of higher quality than Baader (or Astrodon), why not tap into that filter market, not instead of but in addition to Baader (or Astrodon) offerings? Regards


References:
http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/canon/index-mod1.htm
http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/idas/uibar-iii.htm
http://www.seo-e.co.jp/hobby/EOS300D/Price/Price.htm
Canon EOS 60Da Takes the ‘a’
S&T Review
Hiro AP Sample/Dialogue


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5586115 - 12/23/12 06:39 PM

I would hesitate to call Canon's 60Da "superior" to standard modified DSLR's since it does not pass hydrogen-alpha as well as Baader/Astrodon modded cameras do. Jerry Lodgriguss has done a review comparing the 60Da to modified cameras and came to the same conclusion.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5587555 - 12/24/12 05:31 PM

Agreed with Hap, and mmalik, we are NOT saying this because the 60Da "cuts into our 'market/profits'"!! The 60Da does NOT pass as much Ha as a modified camera does. period.
there are many other things to consider when choosing a camera, so am in no way saying it has no place, I am ONLY basing this on the FACT that it is NOT superior when it comes to spectral transmissions. particularly Ha.

ALSO...no one can speculate whether or not the 60Da is susceptible to the 'reflection anomaly issue' that is the topic in the other thread.
So again. "Superior" is subjective. imho
to each his own.
But I definitely would not automatically say that just because YOU have not seen the reflections in YOUR 60Da, that it could not be possible for this issue to arise in this/any model.

back OT
I wouldnt think that Hutech has anything better than what Hap, Gary, or I do..but that is just me.
And I dont know why you say "especially for Full Frame"??
Just because Hutech has a good IR/UV Block filter doesnt make them superior, imho.
IMHO, I see zero difference between the Baader and AstroDon or Astronomik or Edmunds, etc filters being used by any of us(including Hutech/San Seo/etc)..
when the mod is done properly, the results are spectacular, so to debate who has the absolute slightest of edges is completely moot imho..
maybe that is just me?

Cheers!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bouffetout
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 11/21/12

Loc: Canada
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5589027 - 12/25/12 11:00 PM Attachment (16 downloads)

Quote:

Quite presumptuous MOD business is in my opinion ; not questions per se, just my dismay...

•So we are to "presume" FBCF-400D is 'now' actually BCF1?
•Not sure what to make of the "NEW" tag next to FBCF-5DII; new of the old, i.e., FBCF-5DII or new of the new, i.e., BCF2?
•What so called "Astronomical filter" Hutech uses remains a mystery, unless someone can solve?



This is the one I bought recently.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bouffetout
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 11/21/12

Loc: Canada
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: bouffetout]
      #5589030 - 12/25/12 11:04 PM Attachment (17 downloads)

And the backside of the pack !

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: bouffetout]
      #5589034 - 12/25/12 11:09 PM

Thanks Maxx.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5589039 - 12/25/12 11:13 PM

Here is the new one, side by side with the old FBCF-400D/400BCF

Baader-filter_new-vs-old-2 by Oliver Digital Images, on Flickr


And here you can clearly see the difference in the packaging.

Baader-filter_new-vs-old by Oliver Digital Images, on Flickr

Edited by nofxrx (12/25/12 11:13 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
optec
member


Reged: 06/14/06

Loc: United Kingdom
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5589259 - 12/26/12 07:32 AM

Hi all, this is a great read, sometime ago there was a question raised about the Baader filters and which way it fitted into the camera, i.e. there was supposed to be a pink film that was or as it happens; was not easily distingueished, and this dertermined how it fitted.

Is this still the case, does the way the filter is inserted matter?
Ray


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: optec]
      #5591944 - 12/27/12 11:01 PM

The Baader filters no longer have an orientation. They work the same either way.

This is ONLY with the NEW filters, the 400D and newer models.
The OLD ones, for the 300D/350D/20D/30D/5D Mark I DID require a certain orientation (pink side towards lens mount/away from sensor)

Cheers!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
optec
member


Reged: 06/14/06

Loc: United Kingdom
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5592224 - 12/28/12 07:50 AM

Cheers Brent, no worries then when i mod my 450D

Ray


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5592286 - 12/28/12 08:44 AM

Posting following from another... thread since relevant to the discussion:

Quote:

Quote:

So, for DSLRs at least it's the Ha that is the issue, not so much for anything else?



Not an issue per se, it is more about what needs be ‘blocked’ and what needs to be 'passed'. Consider these three wavelengths:

Ultraviolet (UV) 10 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm [wide bandwidth]
Infrared (IR) 0.74 micrometers (µm) to 300 µm [wide bandwidth]
Hydrogen-alpha (H-alpha) 656.28 nm [narrow bandwidth]

Idea is to “block” first two (UV/IR) [to prevent star bloat] and to “pass” H-alpha [to capture the brightest wavelength of visible light in stellar astronomy].

H-alpha is a specific red visible spectral line created by hydrogen with a wavelength of 656.28 nm, which occurs when a hydrogen electron falls from its third to second lowest energy level. Modified LPF-2 (UV/IR blocking filter) allows the astronomically important H-alpha to pass through the narrow bandwidth at the H-alpha frequency (656nm).





Typical stock camera configuration:
1. Stock LPF-1 (IR/UV Block) does NOT block H-alpha
2. Stock LPF-2 (WB & IR/UV Block) “blocks/restricts” H-alpha

Typical modified camera configuration:
1. Stock LPF-1 (IR/UV Block) does NOT block H-alpha
2. Modified LPF-2 (WB & IR/UV Block) “passes” H-alpha

Note: Updates/corrections welcome!




Edited by mmalik (12/30/12 04:33 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Aboy
sage
*****

Reged: 07/17/12

Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5594675 - 12/29/12 04:12 PM

Wow... Thanks for the information.. that's help a lot.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5597126 - 12/30/12 11:22 PM

Posting following from another... thread since relevant to the discussion:

Quote:

Quote:

Few questions:
@Brent, could you confirm if D800 takes FBCF-5DII filter?
...




Yes
Both the D600 and D800 take the Baader FBCF-5DII....but, being hat the 5DII filter is NOT a strong IR block, in fact I am not convinced it blocks ANY IR, the system relies on the stock IR block from the stocks dual filter system...just like the Canons that take this same filter.
While I agree 100% with Hap/Gary that the BCF-1(400D) filter is NEEDED for proper IR removal with models that take the APS-C filter...but not agree with this on ANY full frame models I have EVER modified!(not including OLD models like the 5Dc where the Baader was the only options )..
including, but not limited to:
Canon: 1Dx, 1Ds Mark III, 5D Mark II/Mark III, 6D, also the APS-H 1D Mark III and Mark IV, etc
and
Nikon: D700, D600, D800, D3s/x, etc

I am hoping that Baader releases a new 5DII filter like they did with the new APS-C filter (BCF-1)..

BTW, Nikons are actually easier to use for daytime when modified vs Canon!
they seem to take the mods very well and even the stock/standard WB setting will work perfectly...
For example, with my Canon system(5DII/III, 1D IV, etc) I HAD to use a CWB for EVERY situation..
With my D800 I use AWB for nearly every situation except outdoor/bright sunlight/etc where I select a WB temp of ~3100-3300K...
YMMV..

Hope this helps..




So I think it would be OK to presume FBCF-5DII may NOT be ready for the prime time until BCF2 becomes available for full frame mods?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5597223 - 12/31/12 12:23 AM

Quote:

Posting following from another... thread since relevant to the discussion:


So I think it would be OK to presume FBCF-5DII may NOT be ready for the prime time until BCF2 becomes available for full frame mods?




Well, yes and no.
We have been using the 5DII filter for years now and they work fine AS LONG AS the stock IR cut if left intact.
If you only use the Baader you WILL have a Full Spectrum Mod camera...or one VERY similar to it.

I dont know why Baader would make some filters IR cut, and some not...and then "advertise" all of them as IR Cut Filters...it baffles me, honestly, because the 5DII is clearly NOT an IR Cut(I am working on my IR Filter test video tonight!)..

It DOES still DIRECTLY replace the stock LPF-2 filter in SIZE(and index of refraction, etc). and obviously has great AR coatings as well.

So, since I have done DOZENS of 5D Mark II's alone, not to mention ANY other full frame mods, and they have ALL worked PERFECTLY with the Baader 5DII *and* LPF-1 system, I would say that the mod HAS BEEN "ready for prime time" for a long time!

Just because the filter is not up to the newest Baader (BCF-1) specs/standards does NOT in ANY WAY mean that the filter is useless, or that the filter should not be used in modifications.

Obviously it works, and has worked for a while now..

The ONLY caveat that I can think of is:
Using the Baader 5DII filter in a system that uses a single stock filter system..i.e. something like the Canon 5D Mark I/classic..
You have ONE filter. so you replace it with the Baader 5DII and you will have a Full Spectrum Mod because the filter does not block much/any IR..so instead of a "Baader Mod", you get a Full Spectrum Mod..(again, why Baader would make the filters different is beyond my knowledge ATM!)
Same goes for the Nikon D3, which also uses a single stock filter system. if you only use the Baader 5DII you will have a Full Spectrum camera.
But, the D800 or D600, or 5D Mark II/III or 6D ALL use a DUAL filter system!!! KEEP LPF-1 and replace the WB filter(LPF-2) with the FBCF-5DII and you DO have a "Baader Mod"....
SO...the point? You HAVE To use the CURRENT 5DII filter on cameras that have STOCK DUAL FILTER SYSTEMS! It can NOT be used on SINGLE stock filter systems as an IR Cut replacement.

Sorry..kinda went in circles there. must be my lack of sleep

just my 2's... YMMV


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
moxican
sage


Reged: 11/13/11

Loc: Toronto, ON
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5621078 - 01/13/13 03:39 PM

Wow guys let me just say it first that it's a great thread. Lot's of highly appreciated input by the pros here. I am glad I came across this discussion.
I have bought a Canon 450D, it is going to arrive in the next couple of days. Of course I am planning to modify it. I really like the Idea of leaving LPF#1 on and removing LPF#2 only. However it seems that the discussion came to a conclusion that it might not be the best idea especially if you use a refractor (which I do). Now for the argument's sake let's say that I only remove LPF#2 and later on realize that it gives me images with a few stars bloating. I don't really want to take the cam apart - and/or wait who knows maybe weeks for a replacement filter from Baader or whatnot - I just simply put a 1.25" Baader UV/IR Cut filter - which I happened to own - in the light path. I know it came up during the thread but there was no definite answer to this matter.
Reason why asking because on Brant's (the other Brant) test video when he stacks the Baader IR and the B+W 486 the IR was blocked completely. Hence I assume that leaving LPF#1 on + Baader IR might come up with the same result. If so I just simply remove both LPF and use the 1.25 Baader UV/IR Cut. That is basically how one would go with one of those pro imaging cameras that cost thousands of dollars. Their sensor is exposed too. That's how I image with the DBK21 as well.
Having said all this I am not a pro at this. As a matter of fact I am just asking a question here trying to use common sense based on what I know (which is not too much).
One of my main scope I use for AP is a Semi ED. It is not an APO but it is better than an Achro.
Oh yeah and one more thing. I am only going to use this 450D for AP with telescope. AF function and focusing at infinity with lens is not relevant to me.

Edited by moxican (01/13/13 03:43 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vmsguy
sage


Reged: 01/09/07

Loc: West Virginia
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: moxican]
      #5621221 - 01/13/13 04:55 PM


I'll do a test with with my T1i that only has LPF#2 removed with no replacement filter when I get home this evening.

My hunch is the LPF#1 will have a similar response that the
1.25" Baader IR filter and the B+W 486 filter demonstrated.

Placing the additional IR filter (either the B+W or the Baader) should block most if not all of the IR from the LED.

I still need to do my star bloat tests if it ever clears up around here.

Brent


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5624972 - 01/15/13 07:00 PM Attachment (30 downloads)

To answer the question once for all, let's have a consensus that following list represents commonly modded Canons for astro (with the exception of 'a' models)? Thx

Edited by mmalik (01/16/13 07:32 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vmsguy
sage


Reged: 01/09/07

Loc: West Virginia
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5625144 - 01/15/13 08:34 PM


Don't forget the T3 (1100D). I have modded a couple of those for Greenbank Star Quest as a raffle prize.

digic 4, 14bit, 12.2MP, live view, does NOT have the articulated LCD like the T3i.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jsines
sage
*****

Reged: 09/06/11

Loc: Berkley. Michigan
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: moxican]
      #5626122 - 01/16/13 12:41 PM

Quote:

Wow guys let me just say it first that it's a great thread. Lot's of highly appreciated input by the pros here. I am glad I came across this discussion.
I have bought a Canon 450D, it is going to arrive in the next couple of days. Of course I am planning to modify it. I really like the Idea of leaving LPF#1 on and removing LPF#2 only. However it seems that the discussion came to a conclusion that it might not be the best idea especially if you use a refractor (which I do). Now for the argument's sake let's say that I only remove LPF#2 and later on realize that it gives me images with a few stars bloating. I don't really want to take the cam apart - and/or wait who knows maybe weeks for a replacement filter from Baader or whatnot - I just simply put a 1.25" Baader UV/IR Cut filter - which I happened to own - in the light path. I know it came up during the thread but there was no definite answer to this matter.




I'm wondering the same thing, and hopefully someone with more knowledge than me could answer? I have a Canon 1000D, unmodded, and an Orion ED80T. I'm planning to mod it soon, but I'm wondering if I should order the filter to replace LPF#2, or if I should just take out LPF#2 and order a 1.25" Baader UV/IR cut filter.

Would I get the same results even though the 1.25" filter may arrive a lot sooner?

Note - I also have an Orion SkyGlow filter attached to my t-adapter, not sure adding the 1.25" Baader UV/IR cut filter on top would affect the answer.

Thanks!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: jsines]
      #5626186 - 01/16/13 01:20 PM

I would not advise using any 1.25" accessories in the optical chain. Your vignetting will be much worse. Get a T-adapter that uses a 2" barrel and use 2" filters that screw into that.

On the Baader filter, Alpine Astronomical has them in stock and you can get one in just a couple of days.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5626369 - 01/16/13 03:13 PM

Hap, one of the reasons I didn't include 1100D (T3) because it is not in your mod list...; any particular reason? Will add it after hearing from you. Thx

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5626551 - 01/16/13 04:38 PM

The only reason is that I've been so busy with mods and other work lately that I haven't had time to re-work my web site! I need to add the T3. I am also about to release the new Astrodon full-spectrum clear modifications and filters. I have a few in hand right now for anyone who wants a FS mod for a special introductory price. These are going to be great since they are the proper thickness to exactly replicate the proper back focus when replacing both of the stock glass filters without having to re-shim or change the sensor position.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5626957 - 01/16/13 08:29 PM

That is awesome, Hap!(re: new filters)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5633469 - 01/20/13 04:00 PM

Here are some images I took today with my Astrodon Full Spectrum modified Canon 40D along with an Astronomik OWB clip-in filter. The OWB filter restores the original Canon white balance allowing the modified camera to be used for fully automatic daylight imaging. Also, the new Astrodon clear filter restores perfect auto-focus after replacement of both the IR and dust cleaning filters without having to re-position the sensor like with other clear filters, so auto-focus calibration is retained.

https://picasaweb.google.com/102160416620563323234/AD40ClearTests#


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
collaredkeeper
super member
*****

Reged: 10/25/12

Loc: Redlands, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. *DELETED* new [Re: Aboy]
      #5691036 - 02/20/13 02:41 PM

Post deleted by collaredkeeper

Edited by collaredkeeper (02/20/13 03:07 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: collaredkeeper]
      #5691106 - 02/20/13 03:03 PM

Quote:

I would say that the baader BCF is a requirement for proper astrophotography through a telescope.




You may have misunderstood a bit. One major point being made in this thread is that newer BCF1 is better than older FBCF-400D; that's all. Full spectrum is whole another ball game and is NOT a focus of this thread. So yes, your understanding is correct, but needed clarity. Thx


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
collaredkeeper
super member
*****

Reged: 10/25/12

Loc: Redlands, CA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5691114 - 02/20/13 03:08 PM

actually I am just deleting my post, still very far off from knowing what i am talking about.

Came to the conclusion that the baader was neccessary to help block excessive IR leaked from the front filter.

Edited by collaredkeeper (02/20/13 03:57 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: collaredkeeper]
      #5717113 - 03/06/13 07:26 PM

Update to this thread.

Above mmalik asks about the new/rumored BCF-2 filter as the replacement for the FBCF-5DII filter...the Baader filter for the Canon 5D Mark II(and also the Mark III, fyi .

The NEW BCF-2 filter has arrived, and IT IS FULLY/completely blocking ALL IR!!!!
(video test is coming soon!!)

The NEW Baader filters are BY FAR the best option for people wanting an IR Block INside the camera.
These new filters ALONE block 100% IR!!!! This is proven to be better than ANY LPF-1 and Baader(FBCF-400D) system!(yes, even these leaked IR!)

I was told by my Baader rep that they did NOT change the filters. Meaning they CLAIM the BCF-2 and FBCF-5DII are using the same coatings/processes/etc, essentially, they are the same filters.
They are NOT! FBCF-5DII has ZERO IR blocking. I have several videos showing my tests to prove this that will be posted soon.

I do not know why Baader decided to change up the filter's coatings to provide more/TOTAL IR blocking features, but who cares? it DOES!!
(I was told the Gary had a lot to do with the FBCF-400D getting a "makeover"...but was told the 5DII filter was the same, just with a new name..boy was I surprised when I tested them side by side!)


I still stand by my previous statements that Baader/AstroDon/etc filters were NOT needed when LPF-1 was left intact post-mod. But this is ONLY applicable for the systems where the OLDER Baader filters will be replacing the LPF-2 stock filter; the FBCF-400D(does block MOST IR) and FBCF-5DII(does NOT block ANY IR). If those were the only options, I would recommend just keeping LPF-1 and removing LPF-2, but since the new filters provide TOTAL IR blocking, there really is no other option. period.

NOW..with the new BCF-1(APS-C FULL IR block) and now BCF-2(FULL FRAME w/FULL IR Block)
There is NO need to keep LPF-1 anymore!(obviously you can keep it in if you would like to. For example to retain the Self Cleaning feature of the camera. I for one could care less as I clean my own filters/sensor and do not care about dust spots(IF the "self cleaning" system could even remove them is another story))

What does this mean??
1) This is the ONLY filter you will need in the system..JUST this ONE filter!! read=cleaner/less dust motes/easier to maintain, etc

1.1) These filters will work for ANY digital cameras as a replacement to ALL internal stock filters!

BCF-1 will be perfect for nearly ANY Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic(?), etc APS-C and smaller sized sensor bodies.
Personally has been tested by me on: Canon; 1000D, 450D, 500D, 550D, 600D, 650D, 60D, 7D, EOS-M, Nikon; D5100/D5200, D3100/3200, D7000, D300, D200, D300/s, D2/H/Xs, Sony NEX C3, F3, 5N, 7, a77, a57

BCF-2 will be perfect for nearly ANY Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic(?), etc, FULL FRAME bodies/models.
Personally tested by me on: Canon 5D Mark II/III, 6D, Nikon D3, D700, D800/E, D600, Sony RX1, a99
(**NOTE**, while I have modified each of these models, I have not installed the NEW filters in every model mentioned, some but not all. What I am saying is that these cameras WILL take the Baader filter without much/any work(fitting/adapting/etc). Since these WILL take the Baader filters, the NEW filters will be the ONLY filter that will need to be used to replace ALL internal filters. Meaning on some of these, with the older Baader filters, I would have to leave one of the stock filters(IR Block) intact in order to achieve the best results).


2) removing both stock filters will give you maximum sharpness, read=no AA filters!!(you do not have to buy a D7100 or D800E,etc to get this!)


Just an update...hopefully will be of some use.

Clear skies!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5717451 - 03/06/13 10:41 PM

Quote:

FBCF-5DII has ZERO IR blocking.




Thanks for the update Brent; to clarify:

Are you saying (old) FBCF-5DII didn't block IR at all?
Are you saying (new) BCF2 completely blocks IR?
Why is BCF1 still listed as FBCF-400D...?
Why is BCF2 still listed as FBCF-5DII...?
Can you post the pic of the (new) BCF2 packaging, if handy?


A re-cap for everyone:

LPF-2 Replacement Options (Baader)......Old/Current......New
Canon EOS APS-C.....................................FBCF-400D.........BCF1 [?BCF1 still listed as FBCF-400D]
Canon EOS Full Frame................................FBCF-5DII..........BCF2 [?BCF2 still listed as FBCF-5DII]


Note:
•APS-C = [7D/40D/50D/60D/400D/450D/500D/550D/600D/1000D/1100D]
•Full Frame = [5D Mark II/5D Mark III/6D]


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5719548 - 03/07/13 10:34 PM Attachment (18 downloads)

Yes, not sure why Alpine still lists them as the old FBCF numbers, but the Baader sites do say BCF-1/2,etc..
I am sure Alpine will catch up sometime soon.

Yes, FBCF-5DII does not block ANY IR! It is nothing more than a clear filter with AR coatings(probably some anti-scratch,etc coatings as well) made to the exact specs as the original LPF-2 on a 5D Mark II.
Yes, BCF-2 blocks 100%(99.999%) IR, from what I have seen so far. miles above even the old FBCF-400D(for APS-C).

Here is the packaging. sorry for the cell phone pic
Cheers!

Note, you can see the OLD filter says: Baader Astro CONVERSION Filter for Canon EOS 5D Mark II,
the NEW filter says: Baader CORRECTOR Filter for Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Same product number/part number, two clearly different filters. As you will see in the next post/image.(and later with my IR pass/block test video.)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5719560 - 03/07/13 10:43 PM Attachment (20 downloads)

Better view of the coatings. Left is BCF-2, right is FBCF-5DII
Left shows that pinkish color(note, cell phone shows it kinda blueish, but in real life, it is definitely pink!) that is a tell tale sign of an IR/UV Block filter.
The right shows a CLEAR filter that does not block much of ANYthing...as you can see by the reflection. it passes everything. What you do see is yellowish in color..not sure why the color is yellow, but I can tell you that next to my Edmunds Optics Clear Glass filter the FBCF-5DII looks identical.

All of this is another reason why I have stated for years that a Baader filter WAS not needed for "proper AP" as they offered very little more than just using/keeping LPF-1 intact.
But NOW, that is changed. Hands down, I NOW agree with Hap/Gary/etc that Baader WILL provide the BEST possible system available. by a large margin as well.
If you are getting your camera modified...ask, or even demand them/me/us use the NEW Baader filters!
(pretty sure all of the FBCF-400D's have been used up, so the BCF-1 should be the only filter used now....but there may still be some FBCF-5DII filters out there(I still have one, obviously), so make sure you know/confirm what you are getting!)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hap Griffin
Vendor (Imaging Infinity)
*****

Reged: 04/15/08

Loc: Sumter, SC
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5719665 - 03/07/13 11:44 PM

The Astrodon AD40D filter has always had exceedingly high levels of IR attenuation.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5719795 - 03/08/13 02:25 AM

Quote:

All of this is another reason why I have stated for years that a Baader filter WAS not needed for "proper AP" as they offered very little more than just using/keeping LPF-1 intact.
But NOW, that is changed. Hands down, I NOW agree with Hap/Gary/etc. that Baader WILL provide the BEST possible system available. By a large margin as well.




Thanks for the pics; look forward to your confirmatory test/video. Thx


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: Hap Griffin]
      #5720379 - 03/08/13 11:57 AM

Quote:

The Astrodon AD40D filter has always had exceedingly high levels of IR attenuation.




Sorry Hap, I didnt think about the AstroDon filters when saying "Baader will provide the best possible system"...That was not intentional!
Just having never used/seen/tested one, it just slipped my mind!
I am sure the AstroDon is of very high quality just by considering the rest of the filters Don makes that are of some of the best/highest quality filters available..

Do you know if Don plans on making filters for the Full Frame offerings? (just curious)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
wasyoungonce
sage


Reged: 06/07/07

Loc: Land Downunder
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: mmalik]
      #5721065 - 03/08/13 07:21 PM

[quote/]
A re-cap for everyone:

LPF-2 Replacement Options (Baader)......Old/Current......New
Canon EOS APS-C.....................................FBCF-400D.........BCF1 [?BCF1 still listed as FBCF-400D<!--co...]
Canon EOS Full Frame................................FBCF-5DII..........BCF2 [?BCF2 still listed as FBCF-5DII<!--co...]




Damn .....I have a "new" old version 400BCF Baader corrector filter for a 450D (#245 9213) I was just about to put in as LPF2.

Guess I should can this idea and buy the Astrodon filter or a new BCF1 for 450D and take out the LPF1 as well in lieu of just replacing the LPF2 with the 400BCF.

Oh well....

Thanks for the heads up gents.

Edited by wasyoungonce (03/08/13 07:27 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: wasyoungonce]
      #5721261 - 03/08/13 09:31 PM

Get BCF1 for 450D and replace LPF-2 with it; leave LPF-1 as-is. Note: # may be the same but packaging/filter name is different. Thx

Following courtesy of Brent:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8499/8308598697_993d0f62d2_z.jpg

Edited by mmalik (03/09/13 12:01 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nofxrx
Vendor (HyperCams & Mods)
*****

Reged: 07/12/05

Loc: Palm Bay,Florida
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: wasyoungonce]
      #5721322 - 03/08/13 10:26 PM

Quote:

Damn .....I have a "new" old version 400BCF Baader corrector filter for a 450D (#245 9213) I was just about to put in as LPF2.

Guess I should can this idea and buy the Astrodon filter or a new BCF1 for 450D and take out the LPF1 as well in lieu of just replacing the LPF2 with the 400BCF.

Oh well....

Thanks for the heads up gents.




Hold on!!
There is NOTHING "wrong" with the old filters!!!!
We have been using them for YEARS. Trust me, replace LPF-2 with it, keep LPF-1 in place, and you will be perfectly happy! And will have a system just like 99% of us.

The only thing about the new filters that makes them "better", especially the 5DII/Full Frame/BCF-2, is that they can be used in ANY cameras being that they have FULL IR blocking **by themselves**. No LPF-1 needed. Even though *on Canons* we will still keep LPF-1 intact regardless of which filter we use, new or old..

Put a filter in, go shoot, and be happy

Good luck with the mod! Let me know if you need some help!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
wasyoungonce
sage


Reged: 06/07/07

Loc: Land Downunder
Re: Question about canon modification. new [Re: nofxrx]
      #5721651 - 03/09/13 05:20 AM

Thanks Brent....didn't know that...mod going ahead as soon as I can build a little clean air filtered Perspex box to do the work in...a sort of poor man's clean room bench.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)


Extra information
12 registered and 27 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Dave M, fishonkevin, WOBentley, tecmage 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 7410

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics