Antal I Kozma
Senior Member
Well, look at it from a different perspective. If you have a monochrome camera you do not have to think about loosing out on seeing the colours......... ;-)
Best, AIK
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Poll: A Monochrome Df?
- Thread starter TacticDesigns
- Start date
Best, AIK
Maybe they can get back the ancient and popular F3 back and make a mono DF3 with 60 MP. I'd love to get one if it is priced at $300 like the F3. Dream on. :-DWhy on earth would anyone buy a monochrome Df when Leica have just introduced its bargain basement monochrome camera?
Hm..........
Best to all, AIK
LoneTree1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,801
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1,318
That's the downside with the mass market as opposed to Leica. You have to sell a large quantity in order to pay for it. Which is too bad because it would be nice having something like that that wouldn't cost $8900.00. On the bright side, it may not cost as much as a Bayer camera owing to not having to process 12-14 bit colour images.
A 75mp Bayer camera is no doubt going to be released within the year so 100mp for B&W sounds doable.
Salik Tirmizi
Well-known member
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 20
No Monochrome for me my wish would be a D780 in a DF body with tilt screen & Live view AF which D780 has.
Dodi73
Senior Member
My ideal monochrome Df would be around 30 MP, not 24 not 45 and would have as low iso as possible.
TacticDesigns
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,446
- Solutions
- 9
- Reaction score
- 3,729
Thank you for replying and posting your comment.
Why 30MP?
I just picked 16, 24 and 45 because those are sizes of existing Nikon sensors. 16MP = Df. 24MP = Nikon D780. 45MP = Nikon D850.
Take care & Happy Shooting!
Dodi73
Senior Member
Hello, I'm not referring to the Df only, here.
I consider 30 MP being a sweet spot today. Even if you crop it, you still get a 13.5 MP image and generally speaking you have more than enough for both sport (up to 13"x19") and events/fashion, without worrying too much with af fine tune and you have some leeway if you have to rotate or crop your images. Everyone considering the 20 MP "enough" simply doesn't consider your images should be failproof to fit perfectly a sport magazine because YES, they do are theoretically ENOUGH, yet you assume no crop or mistake has been done when shooting.
I consider 30 MP being a sweet spot today. Even if you crop it, you still get a 13.5 MP image and generally speaking you have more than enough for both sport (up to 13"x19") and events/fashion, without worrying too much with af fine tune and you have some leeway if you have to rotate or crop your images. Everyone considering the 20 MP "enough" simply doesn't consider your images should be failproof to fit perfectly a sport magazine because YES, they do are theoretically ENOUGH, yet you assume no crop or mistake has been done when shooting.
Bob Janes
Veteran Member
Agree that a mirrorless monochrome makes more sense, as it would allow preview of what the B&w image would look like. Would not necessarily need to be very high megapixels, just without any anti-alias filter.
camerosity
Senior Member
A "monochrome" camera is a color camera that converts all color data from the sensor to monochome by default. Why is this better? Sorry I just don't get it. I know the Leica crowd eat this kind of thing up (and pay dearly for it) but in all honesty I like to decide in the lab to convert to black and white when I have a chance to see the image on a computer monitor. Maybe I am just weird like that.
Show me a camera that can convert to monochrome better than any post process available.
Show me a camera that can convert to monochrome better than any post process available.
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
What does "better" mean? You've defined it in your mind, so to you a color camera is better for B&W. I have no issue with your personal conclusion.
Rather than say "better" I would rather use a word like "advantages" or "pros". A monochrome digital camera has the advantage of more resolution for the same number of sensor MP. The monochrome camera does not suffer from color moire. The monochrome camera captures a bit more light.
Of course, the monochrome camera has disadvantages as well. In the end, I would not buy a monochrome digital camera any more than I would buy an infrared digital camera. I have a lot more control in post of the B&W image with a color camera (as you suggest) and I don't have to buy an additional camera that I would use maybe 1% of the time.
However, if one was to gift me a 40+ MP monochrome camera I would happily accept and use it.
morinor
Senior Member
Sertainly not. I think the option to shoot also with colors it is always useful to be there. Why to limit my way of expression at the time of shooting if I can choose to use black and white afterwards? My D750 gives more acceptable results even at 25600 or 51200 ISO when I turn the image B&W than the color one. Let alone with a more modern sensor. So why the need of that 1 EV step, if I cannot shoot with colors when I need to?
Antal I Kozma
Senior Member
Hah, you got me doing some rethinking........ A digital monochrome F3? Woooooow......... that would be something. It was my best tool for years. Although I also would settle for the FM2n........Maybe they can get back the ancient and popular F3 back and make a mono DF3 with 60 MP. I'd love to get one if it is priced at $300 like the F3. Dream on. :-DWhy on earth would anyone buy a monochrome Df when Leica have just introduced its bargain basement monochrome camera?
Hm..........
Best to all, AIK
That was my second camera back then. Which makes me thinking, doesn't the Df resemble the FM2 camera? Just that is fatter, not as slick and thin as the F3 and FM2 were.Wait a minute......!! It just have dawned on me........
A mirrorless F3 or FM2 could be as thin as the original SLRs. But then, with a huge Z mount????? Noooooo..... that would take the magic away again. It would have to be F mount mirrorless. So it is unlikely to happen....... :-(Best, AIK
Any modern DSLR should be able to flip a switch to turn it into a mono DSLR. From back LCD to image processing.
No need at all for a dedicated mono DSLR.
The only time we may see a mono DSLR is IF the sensor is re-designed to catch the light the B/W film catches the light. But I do not see that happening. Even the B/W film catches the light differently with each brand and each emulsion.
Last edited:
Bob Janes
Veteran Member
If you have the Bayer filters there, you lose some light to the filters.. with a panchromatic sensor, where each photosite is sensitive to the full visible range (or perhaps more than that). It would be a niche product - kind of like IR versions, but it could have a market.
Yes. But the mono exclusive market is so small and so diverse. It is close to impossible to make a business profit from doing so.
I'm doing a project with orthochromatic film. I'm sure it can be somehow replicated by using some filters. A lot of those "can" be done as post-process.
No, this is not the way it works. The sensor of a Mono camera, as well as the one of a color camera, does not collect 'color' data: it just collect (monochrome!) 'light' values.
In a color camera the light hitting each photo site of the sensor is previously filtered through a 'Color Filter Array' and then the color (RGB values) for each pixel is 're-built' electronically (by combining and averaging the light values from adjacent photo sites. This results in lower sensitivity (some light is absorbed in filtration) and some loss of actual resolution.
In a 'true' monochrome camera no filtration and no color value interpolation occurs. Light values are directly converted to 'luminance' signal for each pixel.
Yes, ability to apply 'color filtration' in post is what you gain using an RGB signal. But your starting point is somewhat 'degraded'.
Leica M Monochrome (from the 'purist' point of view).
Stan Disbrow
Veteran Member
Hi,
A camera that does better B+W? I have one. A Kodak DCS 660m. That was current at the same time Nikon announced the D1. Before the 660m, there was the 460m. After the 660m, there was the 760m.
These were three generations of the Kodak M6 APS-H 6 MP imager. All three iterations were available in color, with Kodachrome dyes in the CFA, and monochrome. The last letter in the model number denotes the presence of the CFA (c) or not (m).
The output is raw only, and you could use Photoshop or Lightroom or Kodak's own PhotoDesk software. The output of the mono variants is like having an 18 MP color imager and converting to mono. And, significantly greater dynamic range. The only downside is the loss of the CFA boosts the minimum ISO of the M6 CCD from 80 to 320.
Folks who spring for the Leica monochrome, they will experience the same.
Oh, the the 460 is based on the Nikon F90 and the 660 and 760 are Nikon F5's. You don't see any of the mono units on the used market. Those of us who have and use them know exactly what we have. We don't let go of them.
Knowing all this is why I want a mono Df. It'd be grand if Nikon would make one. If not, I can give turning a color Df into a monochrome a try. Not too difficult sounding given my electronics lab. But, that is extra work for me, and then no one else gets a shot at one. So, it'd be better for Nikon to make one.
And, that wouldn't be difficult given that the Df is a low volume product as it is. Since profit is always baked into low volume products, expect around an additional $500 added to the selling price of the Df.
As it is, I rarely convert a color image from my Df into monochrome. I use my 660m instead and wind up with a better image. Yes, here is a case where 6 MP beats 16, MP. But, the downside is the F5 plus digital back combo is large and heavy. And, it eats batteries. Around 200 shots is it. Carry spares. Also, since the Kodak digital back is always waking up to see if the F5 power switch is turned on, a fully charged pack lasts only 7 days with the power switch off.
Yeah. You won't have to twist my arm to buy a mono Df....
Stan
--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
Once you start down the DSLR path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume
your bank account, it will! Like mine, it did!
A camera that does better B+W? I have one. A Kodak DCS 660m. That was current at the same time Nikon announced the D1. Before the 660m, there was the 460m. After the 660m, there was the 760m.
These were three generations of the Kodak M6 APS-H 6 MP imager. All three iterations were available in color, with Kodachrome dyes in the CFA, and monochrome. The last letter in the model number denotes the presence of the CFA (c) or not (m).
The output is raw only, and you could use Photoshop or Lightroom or Kodak's own PhotoDesk software. The output of the mono variants is like having an 18 MP color imager and converting to mono. And, significantly greater dynamic range. The only downside is the loss of the CFA boosts the minimum ISO of the M6 CCD from 80 to 320.
Folks who spring for the Leica monochrome, they will experience the same.
Oh, the the 460 is based on the Nikon F90 and the 660 and 760 are Nikon F5's. You don't see any of the mono units on the used market. Those of us who have and use them know exactly what we have. We don't let go of them.
Knowing all this is why I want a mono Df. It'd be grand if Nikon would make one. If not, I can give turning a color Df into a monochrome a try. Not too difficult sounding given my electronics lab. But, that is extra work for me, and then no one else gets a shot at one. So, it'd be better for Nikon to make one.
And, that wouldn't be difficult given that the Df is a low volume product as it is. Since profit is always baked into low volume products, expect around an additional $500 added to the selling price of the Df.
As it is, I rarely convert a color image from my Df into monochrome. I use my 660m instead and wind up with a better image. Yes, here is a case where 6 MP beats 16, MP. But, the downside is the F5 plus digital back combo is large and heavy. And, it eats batteries. Around 200 shots is it. Carry spares. Also, since the Kodak digital back is always waking up to see if the F5 power switch is turned on, a fully charged pack lasts only 7 days with the power switch off.
Yeah. You won't have to twist my arm to buy a mono Df....
Stan
--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
Once you start down the DSLR path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume
your bank account, it will! Like mine, it did!
Last edited:
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Sorry, I call total and absolute BULL on this one.
I was trained in film at RIT, have shot 35mm, 6x6 medium format, and 4x5 large format, both B&W and chrome, and have printed in the darkroom, occasionally professionally, from said formats. I know what a truly great large format chrome on a lightbox looks like. I've seen dye transfer color and fibre paper B&W prints that were amazing. In short, been there, done that.
These days, with modern high resolution cameras (D8xx bodies), modern, excellent well corrected lenses, proper shot discipline, and quite critically, proper post processing technique, I can produce FAR better B&W output than anything I used to shoot with the exception of 4x5 film. The bulk of my output per year is B&W prints, it's what I'm known for in my studio work.
So how is that possible? How could that be? I'm not using my 1977 Nikkormat and an AIS lens, how could I have any right to produce gallery grade B&W prints? And how in the hell did some of the great digital shooters I've seen over the years who specialize in B&W and have work hanging in galleries do it? I wonder??
1) I understand that the mindset I learned from the film era CAN ACTUALLY APPLY to the digital era - understand exposure, understand light, understand what you can (or can't do) in post processing. I'd even say that being taught in the film era helped me as a photographer in the digital age, even though of course it took a radical new path in terms of how to achieve true craftsmanship.
2) I was WILLING TO EVOLVE as a person and as a photographer - even being of late middle age with a multi-decade history of film, I knew I had to open my mind, discard old biases, and LEARN. That meant perfecting a new aspect of the craft that was different than how we did it in "the old days".
-m
I was trained in film at RIT, have shot 35mm, 6x6 medium format, and 4x5 large format, both B&W and chrome, and have printed in the darkroom, occasionally professionally, from said formats. I know what a truly great large format chrome on a lightbox looks like. I've seen dye transfer color and fibre paper B&W prints that were amazing. In short, been there, done that.
These days, with modern high resolution cameras (D8xx bodies), modern, excellent well corrected lenses, proper shot discipline, and quite critically, proper post processing technique, I can produce FAR better B&W output than anything I used to shoot with the exception of 4x5 film. The bulk of my output per year is B&W prints, it's what I'm known for in my studio work.
So how is that possible? How could that be? I'm not using my 1977 Nikkormat and an AIS lens, how could I have any right to produce gallery grade B&W prints? And how in the hell did some of the great digital shooters I've seen over the years who specialize in B&W and have work hanging in galleries do it? I wonder??
1) I understand that the mindset I learned from the film era CAN ACTUALLY APPLY to the digital era - understand exposure, understand light, understand what you can (or can't do) in post processing. I'd even say that being taught in the film era helped me as a photographer in the digital age, even though of course it took a radical new path in terms of how to achieve true craftsmanship.
2) I was WILLING TO EVOLVE as a person and as a photographer - even being of late middle age with a multi-decade history of film, I knew I had to open my mind, discard old biases, and LEARN. That meant perfecting a new aspect of the craft that was different than how we did it in "the old days".
-m
Agreed.
If both you and your clients think they are good, it is golden.
It does not really what format you use. So we do not have to debate non-stop between FX vs DX, 24MP vs 36MP, color vs mono.... All BS..... :-D
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum