Why are DSLR night-vision adapters so expensive, and are there cheaper alternatives?
Asked 12/19/2016
1 views
2 answers
0
I often see inexpensive video cameras advertising “night vision,” but DSLR night-vision adapters can cost thousands. Why is there such a big price difference?
Are these DSLR adapters doing the same thing as the night mode on cheap camcorders, or are they different technologies? Also, is there another way to get a similar result with a DSLR or mirrorless camera?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
9y ago
2 Answers
1
Are you looking for an "effect" or are you asking about the actual night vision equipment? Assuming you're asking about the equipment, you're confusing IR capable imagers (video cameras, webcams, etc.) and night vision "light amplifiers".
IR imagers take advantage of the fact that most/all cmos/ccd sensors are sensitive into the near infrared. Most cameras have a filter to prevent IR from getting to the imaging chip. Those that don't can use IR LED's to illuminate a scene.
Night vision equipment (as seen in the example photo) amplifies the ambient lighting environment (moonlight, starlight, etc.) to a useable level. These are sensitive to IR as well, and can be used with IR flashlights, beacons, etc.
You can read about the process of light amplification here or here but briefly, the process is as follows (for newer systems).
Photons enter the lens in front of the device and are focused on a transparent but conductive screen that has a high voltage charge. These photons knock loose electrons that enter something called a Microchannel Plate (MCP). They bounce down narrow, tightly packed channels and every time they hit the wall of the channel the electrons knock loose more electrons- amplifying the signal. At the far end of the MCP can be a phosphor screen (giving the green color of the example image) or another MCP for further amplification. Ultimately there is either an eyepiece for direct view of the phosphor, or a lens system for attachment to a camera.
Originally by user11772. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user11772
9y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
They’re usually not the same thing. Cheap cameras that offer “night vision” often just use a sensor that can see some near-infrared light, plus IR LEDs to illuminate the scene. Many DSLRs and mirrorless cameras block most IR with an internal filter, so they can’t do that without modification.
The expensive adapters you’re seeing are typically true night-vision devices: they amplify very low ambient light (moonlight, starlight, etc.) and/or convert wavelengths into visible light the camera can record. That hardware is much more complex than simply using an IR-sensitive sensor, which is why it costs far more.
If you only want the IR look or basic near-IR capture, a cheaper path is an IR-capable camera or a camera modified to remove the IR-blocking filter. If you want actual low-light night-vision performance without visible light, that requires dedicated night-vision equipment, and there isn’t a simple low-cost DSLR accessory that does the same job.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI9y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why do professional cameras cost so much more than a basic point-and-shoot?
Why are Olympus MMF-1/MMF-2 Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds adapters so expensive, and are there cheaper alternatives?
Why do Micro Four Thirds primes seem more expensive than Canon’s 50mm f/1.8?
Are cheap third-party wireless remotes for Canon's N3 port worth buying?
How do I choose a circular polarizing filter, and will a cheaper one still reduce glare?