Infrared Images Conversion isn't necessarily necessary

[depscribe]

Here are a few made with a cheap 720nm filter stuck on a Fuji X100. They're OOC but for auto white balance and channel swap, done in the GIMP. I particularly like the shadow in the last one.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

It also seems to me that angle of incidence is important in infrared, with vignetting being the result of light having to pass through more filter on its way in (or, conversely, in the internal filter of converted cameras) -- you see a whole lot of non-hotspot vignetting in IR pictures, even with lenses that don't otherwise have a hotspot or mess with colors. Reminds me of the vignetting in the Zeiss Hologon Ultrawide camera, with its 15mm lens that vignetted to the extent that it came with a special filter to correct it through a bit of neutral density at the center, fading away at the edges.

 

[Petrochemist]

I started out shooting IR with a stock Pentax K100d, which has a fairly weak hot mirror (similar to the Nikon D70) Traditional monochrome IR was relatively easy with this but framing could be rather hit & miss (no live-view).
Under good conditions handheld shots were practical this image of the Thames was from 5 handheld shots stitched in Microsoft ICE

Infra red Panorama by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
Other shots from this occasion show typical exposures around 1/15s at f/2.8 & ISO 200 (Base ISO for this camera)

More recently I've used stock cameras with an IR filter when I've specifically wanted longer exposures than my converted body would achieve, Heres a 30s one taken with my stock G5.

Distant London EyeR by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
Movement on the London eye was a lot less than I was hoping for, but at least the exposure removed the crowds nearby.