Ever since I saw some time ago that Leica was offering a monochrome (black and white only) digital camera I’ve been intrigued by the concept. It’s a little hard to explain the appeal of the idea other than that as some reviewers have said, having a camera that won’t capture colors changes (or perhaps can change) our mindset about previsualizing subjects. I actually did experience that years ago when using cameras loaded with B&W film. Some of my favorite photos to this day were taken in B&W, including in Vietnam.

The first monochrome only camera I saw reviewed was the Leica Q2 and I was really impressed with some of the images people posted—but the price! And then additional lenses!

Now, however, Ricoh has just announced the Pentax K-3 mark III in a monochrome model, and I already have a conventional version of the same camera, not to mention drawers and boxes full of old Pentax lenses dating back decades that I still use.

But what about just setting a conventional color DSLR to the B&W mode? This is the first review video I viewed and it has some good comparison side by side photos taken with both versions of the K-3 III. As the reviewer noted, the differences in normal lighting are very subtle.
(If you watch the video, note that he inadvertently switched the labels of the two photos at 16:13.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ5LtayQrpo

So, the differences in image quality between using the monochrome version and the color model in B&W mode wouldn’t justify the dedicated model for most of my work, and especially how I would view and use them. But there’s that mindset thing.

New camera, new rifle and scope; new camera, new rifle and scope; or all three?

Any thoughts?

Links to the cameras I mentioned:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c..._iii_monochrome.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c..._digital_camera.html

Shooting in monochrome is an intriguing idea. I've not yet experimented with shooting monochrome with the camera setting, so now I'm curious how it would look and the difference between shooting in color, monochrome. Can I see much difference? What if I take color photos and make them monochrome in DarkTable instead?

It sounds like an interesting experiment. In the OPs case, it would take a lot to justify a separate monochrome camera, especially at that price.

I still use and love my old Panasonic LX3. And yes I frequently use it in one of three monochrome settings, all of which can be customized for contrast, sharpness, saturation and even noise reduction.

Edited to add this article:
https://lx3imaging.wordpress.c...dynamic-black-white/

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bald1,

And a couple of related SIGforum threads.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...561/m/5030094783/p/1

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...6031561/m/9260042694

I've never considered buying a monochrome camera, but the images do behave quite differently when edited due to the lack of a bayer filter. Personally, I'm a big fan of Leica's color science, so I'd prefer the regular Q2 over the Q2 monochrom.

I don't see the need for a camera that only does monochrome, given that one can use B&W film in a film camera or use digital processing to remove the color in a DSLR image.

A solution to an imagined problem.

flashguy

I shoot DSLRs in color. With Photoshop software, you can convert color to B&W (monochrome). With all the adjustments available in PS, it is very easy to get the very best B&W photos out of color. Some 3rd party software filters even emulate Kodak films.....

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
A solution to an imagined problem.

I don't think that's true.

If a camera can only shoot in monochrome, then one cannot shoot the original in color and then change it to monochrome. You shoot it in monochrome or you don't shoot it at all.

It's difficult to articulate but I've given this some thought in the past. Leica didn't produce a monochrome-only camera for no reason. Black and white photography was, of course, originally the only way to create photographs and there is a strong heritage of monochromatic images. Color provides a presence which black and white lacks, but black and white possesses a quality that color photographs lack.

As I said, it's difficult to articulate, but if one wishes to present photographs in black and white, it would be better to do it with a monochrome-only camera. Otherwise, one has a choice in the processing of their images and that choice tends to make removing the color from images meaningless.

Also, as has been stated, removing the Bayer filter from the CCD is claimed to alter somewhat the nature and manipulability(?) of images shot in such a manner, though I cannot speak directly to this. Again, I would point to Leica's creation of such cameras.

It would be easier to explain if we were both high....

I have cameras ranging from 35mm all the way up to 4x5 inches. I have thought about getting an 8x10 but those get rather expensive and modern films have amazing resolving power that sort of fills in for an 8x10. Anyhow, developing and printing color films is quite technical and ideally you need to control the temperature of the chemicals used within +/- 0.1 degrees. So if I am shooting film it's black and white. Shooting with black and white film opens up a whole new range of possibilities. Put a deep red filter over the lens and blue skies can become very dramatic, especially if there are clouds aloft. Color filters can allow you to play a whole bunch of tricks with the different colors in nature and how they reproduce on B&W film.

Point is that there is a lot of magic in B&W that folks today are totally blind to. So if the camera makers want to bring back B&W I am all for it.

Personally, I see it as more of a novelty than a need. As other’s have said, the ability to convert to B/W via a variety of methods seems to address the issue.

A BW only sensor that doesn’t bring anything “extra” to the table such as improved ISO/noise performance, greater dynamic range, considerably more resolution, etc. seems pretty limiting when there is no need to be limited.

I have a hard time seeing it as more than a gimmick that some folks will see as a pseudo status symbol even though it may not do anything better than any color body of comparable quality.

I have a Konica T4 with numerous lenses ... and still shooting B/W film that I develop myself.

I love the challenge of B/W film as it makes me think unlike when using digital.

Just me, maybe no for others, but I am happy with my hobby in my world.

Oh, and I enjoy pinhole photography too !

Thanks for all the encouragement. All three it is, then.

Just pass the bong around again. They'll get it.

You got expand your miiiiiind, man....

Why Leica's M10 Monochrom is more than just a gimmick

Does the Bayer Filter on an Image Sensor Make a Photo Less Sharp

quote:

In some circles of photography, film is really the only option for attaining maximum sharpness from a lens–and those circles may attribute the problem to a Bayer Filter. Look at it this way: the Leica Monochrom offers such incredibly sharp photos because of the lack of a Bayer filter. So that has to be the case, right? Well, not really.

Drew Altdoerffer is the Phase One, Product Manager & Market Specialist and he told us this:

“The Bayer filter itself does NOT make the image less sharp. The Bayer filter is simply a way to designate a color filtration for each individual pixel. If the image were rendered without the interpolation of this color information, it would be just as sharp as a camera/sensor without this filter. However in that case you would not have accurate colors. So it is technically the interpolation of what the Bayer filter captures, creating the final colors, which makes the image appear “less sharp”.

This, in contrast, is why an Achromatic (not Monochromatic) sensor is so much sharper. There is no interpolation and therefore there is no “loss” of sharpness. Each and every pixel records a direct luminance value and this value is represented in the image with minimal change. When a color back, using a Bayer Filter, goes through the interpolation process to “evaluate” the color of an individual picture, it has to sacrifice some of the accuracy to achieve this measure. This is where any “loss” in sharpness is perceived, as the color value represented in the final image is an interpreted value of the pixels, based on the Bayer pattern and how that pattern is interpolated.”

The Leica Monochrom Review Part 2: Low light, High ISO and Filters

.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
New camera, new rifle and scope; new camera, new rifle and scope; or all three?

Any thoughts?

I think that you know the only answers that us enablers are likely to give you is either all three or two of all three.

I personally have no use for a monochrome DSLR as it seems pointless to me. When I want monochrome images, I whip out one of the following loaded with Ilford Delta 100 or 400 film...

1) Bronica ETRS 645 format, 120 roll film

2) Minolta X-570 35mm

3) Yashica Electro35 GTN rangefinder

Dale Labs in FL does an excellent job of processing and printing, and if I need it in a hurry, a local mom & pop camera shop does it onsite... though it costs a bloody fortune more!

I am definitely not well educated in this arena, however, shooting in RAW and using post=processing software such a photoshop, would seem to render this moot for 99.9% of images. Ansel Adams may disagree, however.

It brings back memories of Ansel Adams and Minor White.

Just doing monochrome is not my thing but I can see people doing it.

I could see it as a useful thing to have around.

Just an observation. The pros always seem to have more than one camera around their neck or very close by on shoots. Maybe one could be color another black and white. And you then get to choose according to light and subject without a bunch of fidgeting with the settings on one camera. And many of my shots in black and white have a much more interesting and sharper focus to my eye.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
A BW only sensor that doesn’t bring anything “extra” to the table such as improved ISO/noise performance, greater dynamic range, considerably more resolution, etc. seems pretty limiting when there is no need to be limited.

I shoot with the Leica monochrome M246 alongside the color M240. Both have the same sensor, but the M246 lacks the Bayer Array needed to produce a color image. The M246 has a full stop of improved ISO performance over the M240 due to the elimination of the light loss from the Bayer Array. It also resolves more fine detail and subtle tone changes, much like a higher resolution sensor. It excels at pulling out shadow detail without bringing up noise So there are real performance benefits.

Pentax has released a monochrome version of the K3-ii

People pay good money to have their camera converted to monochrome only or infrared only.

The idea is the monochrome only allows shooting in RAW format where setting your standard DSLR to black and white is like using a filter or converting an image from color to black and white.