Reading mode: Light Dark

If you want just Black & White...

Go to last post
flektogon

flektogon

Veteran Member
Messages
7,672
Solutions
8
Reaction score
5,718
Location
Ontario, CA
I know you may say another provocative thread, but seriously, the modern digital cameras can deliver almost unlimited variety of results. Not only "film look like", but perfect B&W pictures, unrecognizable from the genuine B&W films.

And again, it's Pentax, which is much closer to the film photography than anyone else. Look at the following pictures, to see what such a dedicated B&W digital camera can deliver:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67814145

Well, this camera is not cheap at $2,200 (in Canada over 3k). For sure it is still 4 times cheaper than the next B&W digital camera made by Leica, but still..

However, if you are "cost sensitive", getting this Pentax K3 monochrome may save you a lot of money. Just calculate with me:

Staying with film: if don't already have any decent film camera, expect to pay $200 and more for a (well) working, still used camera. Now, over the time you will spend a substantially more on the films, processing and (apparently) scanning. How much? I estimate that 1 roll of film (35 exp.) may cost you as much as 30$, especially if want to have it professionally scanned. Unless you invest into such professional scanner, but then rather buy that digital camera right the way. Anyway, once you use some 65 film rolls - 2,000 pictures (or far less, if you are experimenting a lot), you have already spent exactly the same amount as what that Pentax costs.

So, are you planning to shoot more than 65 film rolls? If yes and want to save money, go digital!

--
Regards,
Peter
 
Last edited:
And then GAS sets in..... so a new digital comes along and whoops, you trade in the Pentax for something else:-)

Just kidding but nice thought here all around. I haven't tried nor looked at the Pentax Monochrom. I do know it is larger than my SLR's though. Yet, I will still stick with my OM2 and Pen half-frame for my 'film look'....
 
In Canada, a roll of cheap BW film plus development and extra high res scanning (30MP) plus tax minus 10% member's discount is about $45 CAD.

K3III Monochrome is an equivalent of approximately 75 rolls or 2700 frames.

Again, I mean cheap film like Lomography, not Kodak professional!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_virt/
 
Last edited:
alex_virt said:
In Canada, a roll of cheap BW film plus development and extra high res scanning (30MP) plus tax minus 10% member's discount is about $45 CAD.

K3III Monochrome is an equivalent of approximately 75 rolls or 2700 frames.

Again, I mean cheap film like Lomography, not Kodak professional!
Click to expand...
Of course, home development and scanning can be much cheaper, depending on how you value your time and effort 😁

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_virt/
 
Last edited:
I have been a Leica user for years, right now on Leica forums lots of folks are using M10M, M11M and Q2,3M monochrome cameras. much more expensive than the Pentax (of course it is Leica). The results are exquisit,the Pentax probably uses a similar sensor.

Me I have my old M3 some Leica lenses, so I use film for B&W, even if there is no ISO12000 film. I have been out of using film recently due to a broken right wrist, can't adgitate the film can properly especially my 1 liter 4x5 tank. The urge is coming back.
 
alex_virt said:
In Canada, a roll of cheap BW film plus development and extra high res scanning (30MP) plus tax minus 10% member's discount is about $45 CAD.

K3III Monochrome is an equivalent of approximately 75 rolls or 2700 frames.

Again, I mean cheap film like Lomography, not Kodak professional!
Click to expand...
With ColorPlus or Gold + Lab dev, but scan myself it’s ~£15 (so ~CAD 27)
 
Overrank said:
alex_virt said:
In Canada, a roll of cheap BW film plus development and extra high res scanning (30MP) plus tax minus 10% member's discount is about $45 CAD.

K3III Monochrome is an equivalent of approximately 75 rolls or 2700 frames.

Again, I mean cheap film like Lomography, not Kodak professional!
Click to expand...
With ColorPlus or Gold + Lab dev, but scan myself it’s ~£15 (so ~CAD 27)
Click to expand...
What scanner and software do you use?
 
I have to disagree with a lot of this... break out those asbestos suits and bear with me for a long rant, my friends!
flektogon said:
the modern digital cameras can deliver almost unlimited variety of results. Not only "film look like", but perfect B&W pictures, unrecognizable from the genuine B&W films.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I get some amazing B&Ws out of my Sony. Easy. Press the button, focus and exposure are perfect. Plenty of contrast and shades of gray thanks to greater DR. Primary skill that's needed is to "see" a good B&W photo. Photo no good? Try another. Heck, shoot 50, they're "free". Shoot long enough and you're bound to get a good one!

Of course, easy-to-obtain results and instant gratification are the reason a lot of us *don't* shoot digital. Many of us filmies enjoy the process and the imperfections, the trials and tribulations of film. To me, a good film shot is harder-won.
flektogon said:
However, if you are "cost sensitive", getting this Pentax K3 monochrome may save you a lot of money. Just calculate with me:
Click to expand...
What you said about the costs of film is FUD that really bothers me. It scares a lot of people away from film and it's just not true. Sure, you *can* spend that much, but you don't need to. To wit...
flektogon said:
if don't already have any decent film camera, expect to pay $200 and more for a (well) working, still used camera.
Click to expand...
The idea that one must pay $200 for a good camera and rush it off for a $100 overhaul is just not true. I have never paid that much for a camera.

My workhorse cameras are a Pentax P30t (<$20 USD), a trio of Pentax-compatible Sears KS Autos (Ricoh XR-2s) ($7, $15 and $20, last two w/ lenses, including a 50/1.4!!), Pentax K2 (bought a pair for $100), Nikon FG (free) and a PC35AF point-and-shoot ($50).

Most advanced, feature-packed camera: Minolta Maxxum 5, $12 w/ lens.

Most impressive camera: Nikon N8008 w/ 3 zooms and a 50/1.4, $100.

Most expensive: Pentax KX, $100 plus $80 for overhaul. (An extravagance to keep miles off my original KX.)

Tell friends you're into film, and they will give you cameras. Among the gifts I've gotten: Canon AE-1, Pentax MX and ME Super, Ricoh KR-10, Nikon FE, Nikkormat FT2, Minolta 5000, pair of Mamiya 645 1000s. All with lenses. (I have more lenses than I can count; most came with cameras. I think I've bought four, from $5 to $40.)

All of the cameras above were working when I got them. One of the KS Autos, FE and the ME Super eventually gave up the ghost. The N8008 is fussy and I'll likely replace it for <$50.

BTW the camera I recommend for beginners is the Minolta 400si. They're creeping up in price (mine was $12 body-only) but you can still get one w/ lens, shipped, for <$50.
flektogon said:
Now, over the time you will spend a substantially more on the films, processing and (apparently) scanning. How much? I estimate that 1 roll of film (35 exp.) may cost you as much as 30$, especially if want to have it professionally scanned.
Click to expand...
Key words being "as much as"! :)

A roll of premium B&W film is up to $10-$12 now w/ tax (thanks, inflation). "Discount" B&Ws (Kentmere, Foma) $7. I buy 100' rolls, which lowers premium film to $6-7, Kentmere to <$5. (Reusable canisters are a couple of bucks.)

B&W developing: If you do it yourself (which IMHO is part of the fun), $150-or-so initial investment (my equipment was gifted to me) and $1 to $2 in chemicals per roll. I use a $300 flatbed scanner, but one can use a digital camera and invest less.

I've calculated my costs at around $6-7 per roll (assuming the scanner lasts 5 years) -- that's film, developing, scanning and tax. $12 on the occasions I buy pre-rolled film. Let's give digital benefit of the doubt and say $10 average.

That K-3 Monochrome is $2,196 at B&H, $2,846 with a kit lens. I don't have a lens, so figure $3,000 with tax.

For that same $$, I could shoot a roll a week for five and a half years -- and still have change left over for a one of those overpriced $200 cameras. And don't most digital photographers replace their cameras more than twice a decade, and upgrade past the kit lens before that?

-[Dramatic pause for breath]-

I know film isn't for everyone -- but if you're dedicated to it, I think you'll find it's not only more fun and challenging, it's also cost-effective. Digital B&W is quite fabulous, an art form on its own, and the detail is stunning, especially out of a dedicated camera. But one can get some decent result with film , and I find the victories that much sweeter.

Aaron
 
alex_virt said:
Overrank said:
alex_virt said:
In Canada, a roll of cheap BW film plus development and extra high res scanning (30MP) plus tax minus 10% member's discount is about $45 CAD.

K3III Monochrome is an equivalent of approximately 75 rolls or 2700 frames.

Again, I mean cheap film like Lomography, not Kodak professional!
Click to expand...
With ColorPlus or Gold + Lab dev, but scan myself it’s ~£15 (so ~CAD 27)
Click to expand...
What scanner and software do you use?
Click to expand...
A Nikon CoolScan V and SilverFast 9 (for 35mm). I’d originally used a Plustek, then tried paying for scans, then decided the money was better put into a better scanner.
 
Last edited:
Autonerd said:
Agreed. I get some amazing B&Ws out of my Sony. Easy. Press the button, focus and exposure are perfect. Plenty of contrast and shades of gray thanks to greater DR. Primary skill that's needed is to "see" a good B&W photo. Photo no good? Try another. Heck, shoot 50, they're "free". Shoot long enough and you're bound to get a good one!

Of course, easy-to-obtain results and instant gratification are the reason a lot of us *don't* shoot digital. Many of us filmies enjoy the process and the imperfections, the trials and tribulations of film. To me, a good film shot is harder-won.
Click to expand...
A huge difference between shooting film and digital. It is all about the process using your skills, the available light, the settings you put in place etc... prior to taking a photo with film. I have no idea what I am going to get and no 'cheat sheet' type 'live screen' to guide me. Just my skills and hope for the best.

As opposed to digital where many (not all) people have no idea of the camera settings and just place it in blind auto-mode and shoot away, knowing that at least one of the multiple shots they take will make it to post processing and software. Then they will sharpen it up, add hue, and make the image become fake. My human eyes don't see that sharpness, so why should my images?

And NO...they don't look like 'my film' shots, no matter what. It just won't happen.
Autonerd said:
That K-3 Monochrome is $2,196 at B&H, $2,846 with a kit lens. I don't have a lens, so figure $3,000 with tax.

For that same $$, I could shoot a roll a week for five and a half years -- and still have change left over for a one of those overpriced $200 cameras. And don't most digital photographers replace their cameras more than twice a decade, and upgrade past the kit lens before that?
Click to expand...
Exactly....GAS!!!!... Of course we all might experience this but the digital folks have more $$$ in their GAS. So, look at (in today's dollars') $3000 every so many digital years. Then start comparing it to the film cost. No....much more expensive going with digital

--
jim lehmann https://jimlehmann.squarespace.com
 
Last edited:
Overrank said:
alex_virt said:
Overrank said:
alex_virt said:
In Canada, a roll of cheap BW film plus development and extra high res scanning (30MP) plus tax minus 10% member's discount is about $45 CAD.

K3III Monochrome is an equivalent of approximately 75 rolls or 2700 frames.

Again, I mean cheap film like Lomography, not Kodak professional!
Click to expand...
With ColorPlus or Gold + Lab dev, but scan myself it’s ~£15 (so ~CAD 27)
Click to expand...
What scanner and software do you use?
Click to expand...
A Nikon CoolScan V and SilverFast 9 (for 35mm). I’d originally used a Plustek, then tried paying for scans, then decided the money was better put into a better scanner.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
So you need to be more economical with your film and development!

Everyone who has the capability in their living space, and wants to shoot B&W film, should develop it themselves, AND scan it if digitizing it is part of the end result.

My gear is on the more expensive end, but it's only maybe $600: a Pacific Image film scanner and the daylight Lab-Box for developing. These two items cut my workflow down to a really reasonable time and keep the process enjoyable.
 
flektogon said:
Staying with film: if don't already have any decent film camera, expect to pay $200 and more for a (well) working, still used camera.
Click to expand...
I agree with Aaron.

$200 CAD can buy a lot of camera. My Canon Elan 7 cost me about that much with a kit lens, including shipping and the customs duty, and it's an advanced camera very similar to a DSLR. One can buy a working camera for a lot less.

A few years ago, I bought a Pentax Spotmatic for $25 to add to my collection of "decorative" cameras. As it turned out recently, it works just fine. It isn't as convenient as the Elan 7 or the Pentax Z-1P due to lack of a dioptre adjustment and somewhat wonky light meter, but it is a very attractive camera, and my Super Tak 50/1.4 is fantastic on film!
 
lmans100 said:
Tomm111 said:
The urge is coming back.
Click to expand...
You left us in anticipation....urge to return to 'Film or Digital"?
Click to expand...
I have been using digital, I am seeing film right now, black and white. Just have to have the temperature go down (no AC pushing 90 every day). Even with cold temperature baths it would be tough to develop, or maybe look into C41 kits.
 
Autonerd said:
I have to disagree with a lot of this... break out those asbestos suits and bear with me for a long rant, my friends!
Autonerd said:
the modern digital cameras can deliver almost unlimited variety of results. Not only "film look like", but perfect B&W pictures, unrecognizable from the genuine B&W films.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I get some amazing B&Ws out of my Sony. Easy. Press the button, focus and exposure are perfect. Plenty of contrast and shades of gray thanks to greater DR. Primary skill that's needed is to "see" a good B&W photo. Photo no good? Try another. Heck, shoot 50, they're "free". Shoot long enough and you're bound to get a good one!

Of course, easy-to-obtain results and instant gratification are the reason a lot of us *don't* shoot digital. Many of us filmies enjoy the process and the imperfections, the trials and tribulations of film. To me, a good film shot is harder-won.
Autonerd said:
However, if you are "cost sensitive", getting this Pentax K3 monochrome may save you a lot of money. Just calculate with me:
Click to expand...
What you said about the costs of film is FUD that really bothers me. It scares a lot of people away from film and it's just not true. Sure, you *can* spend that much, but you don't need to. To wit...
Autonerd said:
if don't already have any decent film camera, expect to pay $200 and more for a (well) working, still used camera.
Click to expand...
The idea that one must pay $200 for a good camera and rush it off for a $100 overhaul is just not true. I have never paid that much for a camera.

My workhorse cameras are a Pentax P30t (<$20 USD), a trio of Pentax-compatible Sears KS Autos (Ricoh XR-2s) ($7, $15 and $20, last two w/ lenses, including a 50/1.4!!), Pentax K2 (bought a pair for $100), Nikon FG (free) and a PC35AF point-and-shoot ($50).

Most advanced, feature-packed camera: Minolta Maxxum 5, $12 w/ lens.

Most impressive camera: Nikon N8008 w/ 3 zooms and a 50/1.4, $100.

Most expensive: Pentax KX, $100 plus $80 for overhaul. (An extravagance to keep miles off my original KX.)

Tell friends you're into film, and they will give you cameras. Among the gifts I've gotten: Canon AE-1, Pentax MX and ME Super, Ricoh KR-10, Nikon FE, Nikkormat FT2, Minolta 5000, pair of Mamiya 645 1000s. All with lenses. (I have more lenses than I can count; most came with cameras. I think I've bought four, from $5 to $40.)

All of the cameras above were working when I got them. One of the KS Autos, FE and the ME Super eventually gave up the ghost. The N8008 is fussy and I'll likely replace it for <$50.

BTW the camera I recommend for beginners is the Minolta 400si. They're creeping up in price (mine was $12 body-only) but you can still get one w/ lens, shipped, for <$50.
Autonerd said:
Now, over the time you will spend a substantially more on the films, processing and (apparently) scanning. How much? I estimate that 1 roll of film (35 exp.) may cost you as much as 30$, especially if want to have it professionally scanned.
Click to expand...
Key words being "as much as"! :)

A roll of premium B&W film is up to $10-$12 now w/ tax (thanks, inflation). "Discount" B&Ws (Kentmere, Foma) $7. I buy 100' rolls, which lowers premium film to $6-7, Kentmere to <$5. (Reusable canisters are a couple of bucks.)

B&W developing: If you do it yourself (which IMHO is part of the fun), $150-or-so initial investment (my equipment was gifted to me) and $1 to $2 in chemicals per roll. I use a $300 flatbed scanner, but one can use a digital camera and invest less.

I've calculated my costs at around $6-7 per roll (assuming the scanner lasts 5 years) -- that's film, developing, scanning and tax. $12 on the occasions I buy pre-rolled film. Let's give digital benefit of the doubt and say $10 average.

That K-3 Monochrome is $2,196 at B&H, $2,846 with a kit lens. I don't have a lens, so figure $3,000 with tax.

For that same $$, I could shoot a roll a week for five and a half years -- and still have change left over for a one of those overpriced $200 cameras. And don't most digital photographers replace their cameras more than twice a decade, and upgrade past the kit lens before that?

-[Dramatic pause for breath]-

I know film isn't for everyone -- but if you're dedicated to it, I think you'll find it's not only more fun and challenging, it's also cost-effective. Digital B&W is quite fabulous, an art form on its own, and the detail is stunning, especially out of a dedicated camera. But one can get some decent result with film , and I find the victories that much sweeter.

Aaron
Click to expand...
Hi!

I agree with "enjoy the process and inperfection" thing. Oh, my favourite lens is definitely MD Rokkor 45/2. Now, I've been using that with FF mirrorless caneras (results lack when used with APS-C camera), but it is still not the same than with film...

And I surely think that K3IIIM is not the only cost but for example lenses, too. And upgrading, and and...

Now, I admit I was a while interested when they announced K3IIIM, but I got over that. One thing was that I do not own any Pentax lenses already!

A s l a
 
alex_virt said:
flektogon said:
Staying with film: if don't already have any decent film camera, expect to pay $200 and more for a (well) working, still used camera.
Click to expand...
I agree with Aaron.

$200 CAD can buy a lot of camera. My Canon Elan 7 cost me about that much with a kit lens, including shipping and the customs duty, and it's an advanced camera very similar to a DSLR. One can buy a working camera for a lot less.

A few years ago, I bought a Pentax Spotmatic for $25 to add to my collection of "decorative" cameras. As it turned out recently, it works just fine. It isn't as convenient as the Elan 7 or the Pentax Z-1P due to lack of a dioptre adjustment and somewhat wonky light meter, but it is a very attractive camera, and my Super Tak 50/1.4 is fantastic on film!
Click to expand...
But Alex, it doesn't matter how much is the cheapest film camera! The main cost is the film and its processing!

And regarding the results not to be the same as if taken with a digital camera? Well, once the film/negative is (digitally scanned), all that "special look" is gone!

And regarding the "excitation" from the working with film in the dark room, the same you can experience with the PP of digital files. The only exception is, that you can't expect anything like a completely dark (or transparent) developed film. This actually never happened to me, but I remember one my friend, who didn't realize that the card box (actually it was a tube) had the second part of the developer separated, so he didn't use it! When I asked him why his negatives are completely washed out, he explained it as that he was developing ghosts :-) .

--
Regards,
Peter
 
Last edited:
flektogon said:
And regarding the results not to be the same as if taken with a digital camera? Well, once the film/negative is (digitally scanned), all that "special look" is gone!
Click to expand...
No. My scans never look the same as digital! Even when I add grain into LR, it never really looks realistic. I use a Nikon Z6/ii for digital and also have a Nikon F100, so I can use the same lenses on each camera. My film images always look like film. My digital images look like "digital trying to look like film."

And then when I use a camera like my Leica M3, there is no way I can get any of my digital images to look remotely close to what it creates.

Plus, there's just the determination and satisfaction of holding and using a film camera.
 
mollyc said:
flektogon said:
And regarding the results not to be the same as if taken with a digital camera? Well, once the film/negative is (digitally scanned), all that "special look" is gone!
Click to expand...
No. My scans never look the same as digital! Even when I add grain into LR, it never really looks realistic. I use a Nikon Z6/ii for digital and also have a Nikon F100, so I can use the same lenses on each camera. My film images always look like film. My digital images look like "digital trying to look like film."

And then when I use a camera like my Leica M3, there is no way I can get any of my digital images to look remotely close to what it creates.

Plus, there's just the determination and satisfaction of holding and using a film camera.
Click to expand...
Fully agree with this.
 
mollyc said:
flektogon said:
And regarding the results not to be the same as if taken with a digital camera? Well, once the film/negative is (digitally scanned), all that "special look" is gone!
Click to expand...
No. My scans never look the same as digital! Even when I add grain into LR, it never really looks realistic. I use a Nikon Z6/ii for digital and also have a Nikon F100, so I can use the same lenses on each camera. My film images always look like film. My digital images look like "digital trying to look like film."

And then when I use a camera like my Leica M3, there is no way I can get any of my digital images to look remotely close to what it creates.

Plus, there's just the determination and satisfaction of holding and using a film camera.
Click to expand...
Just look more carefully at the second picture (in the link I've provided), taken at a higher ISO. Its fine grain (consisting only of the luminance noise) is similar what my films (well, much less sensitive) exhibited. Very, very pleasing.

So no, such a digital camera like Pentax K3 mono can deliver as pleasing results as the best films. The only decision, whether to shoot film or digital (like this Pentax) is, whether you want to spend money right the way, or spread it over the time.

--
Regards,
Peter
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Blogging With Film
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
p_anotherguy
P
flektogon
Are you planning to complement your film camera(s)
Replies
12
Views
297
Joe Moche
J
A
How do I make my film photos less "digital"?
Replies
16
Views
25K
alex_virt
A
B
Regret using color negative film
Replies
18
Views
613
D Cox
D
G
Anyone with experience shipping film abroad? (CT scanners dangers)
Replies
7
Views
680
peter826
P

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top