Who else is waiting for K 3 Mark 3 MONOCHROME?

Sjak wrote:

Kobie M-C wrote:

Well, since a monochrome camera has no color filter array, the image quality, dynamic range and sharpness is vastly superior as is the iso capability with a much lower noise floor compared to a color sensor. You can't replicate those in software.

For me personally, all the technical finer points are nice, but ultimately less relevant. Sensor-tech evolves, and current CMOS is far superior to the CCD in my Monochrom, as far as the numerics are concerned.

The huge advantage in my user case is that the post-processing is extremely simple and straight forward with a mono-file. The most obvious is no fiddling with colour-channels, but there's also how to deal with noise. Luminosity-noise is so much easier to process (and/or to blend into grain) than colour noise to get a pleasing image.

In addition, during the shooting itself, I am solely focused on looking for B&W-images; with a colour-cam, I'm often trying a bit of both, which can easily lead to fewer keepers. It's a bit the same (for me) as a prime vs zoom; neither is "better", but in general I prefer the simplicity of a prime.

So I'd buy a K-1M immedately

Yes, simplicity and "purity" of workflow is also a major selling point for me.

Romaner wrote:

Yes, simplicity and "purity" of workflow is also a major selling point for me.

You could download some Leica Monochrom files to download and play with in your software of choice.

Or one step up, from the Phase One Achromat digital back; if I had unlimited funds, I'd get one of those...

Romaner wrote:

EXACTLY! Some people just don't understand this. I know that software convertion is more convenient for a lot of people, but there are a lot of color cameras, and VERY few (and VERY expensive) cameras for people who mainly shoot BW and understand the benefits of monochrome sensor.

Phase One, which is only used by extremely demanding photographers, has a B&W-digital back. The price of the IQ4 Achromatic 150MP digital 645-back is around 50k (yes, fifty grand) and the camera-body to go with it will add another 8k.

https://www.photo-digitaltransitions.com/product/phase-one-iq4-150mp-achromatic-digital-back/

I'm sure that Pentax K 3 Mk. 3 Monochrome will sell very well.

I'm not sure if it would, and personally I'd rather see a K-1M, which also may or may not become a huge seller. But I am sure either would get a dedicated following.

Sjak wrote:

Romaner wrote:

Yes, simplicity and "purity" of workflow is also a major selling point for me.

You could download some Leica Monochrom files to download and play with in your software of choice.

Or one step up, from the Phase One Achromat digital back; if I had unlimited funds, I'd get one of those...

I'm very aware of Leica Mono and Phase One Achromatic. I wanted to buy used Leica 246, but the ones that were selling at that time had some problems (dealbrakers).
Also I really enjoy shooting on APS - C camera, I feel that that's my format (I've tried both FF and MF, even MFT).

Sjak wrote:

Romaner wrote:

EXACTLY! Some people just don't understand this. I know that software convertion is more convenient for a lot of people, but there are a lot of color cameras, and VERY few (and VERY expensive) cameras for people who mainly shoot BW and understand the benefits of monochrome sensor.

Phase One, which is only used by extremely demanding photographers, has a B&W-digital back. The price of the IQ4 Achromatic 150MP digital 645-back is around 50k (yes, fifty grand) and the camera-body to go with it will add another 8k.

https://www.photo-digitaltransitions.com/product/phase-one-iq4-150mp-achromatic-digital-back/

I'm sure that Pentax K 3 Mk. 3 Monochrome will sell very well.

I'm not sure if it would, and personally I'd rather see a K-1M, which also may or may not become a huge seller. But I am sure either would get a dedicated following.

As you've mentioned, cameras like Leica Monochrom and Phase One Achromatic are pretty expensive, so any other monochrome camera with lower price should do well on the "monochrome camera market".

Romaner wrote:

As you've mentioned, cameras like Leica Monochrom and Phase One Achromatic are pretty expensive, so any other monochrome camera with lower price should do well on the "monochrome camera market".

The Leicas are still attainable (with some financial discipline) especially when buying used. This being said, I "had quite some time" to think if I really wanted a Monochrom As for lenses, despite the reputation, there's no need to speed thousands; the only lens I have for my Leica that actually cost 1000 euro was a very rare portrait lens from the mid-thirties; the rest was considerably less.

The Phase One is really in a different league, and almost purely for commercial use.

But back to a Pentax Mono: I'm not sure how much lower the price would be compared to the Monoleicas, and how much more expensive than the regular version of the K3iii (or K-1) This will be a niche-item for sure. But it may also work as a halo-product for the brand and gather interest from non-Pentax-users.

So also I'm not confident about the sales-numbers, I'm also not saying it's a bad idea to make a Pentax K-xx Mono.

Sjak wrote:

Kobie M-C wrote:

Well, since a monochrome camera has no color filter array, the image quality, dynamic range and sharpness is vastly superior as is the iso capability with a much lower noise floor compared to a color sensor. You can't replicate those in software.

For me personally, all the technical finer points are nice, but ultimately less relevant. Sensor-tech evolves, and current CMOS is far superior to the CCD in my Monochrom, as far as the numerics are concerned.

The huge advantage in my user case is that the post-processing is extremely simple and straight forward with a mono-file. The most obvious is no fiddling with colour-channels, but there's also how to deal with noise. Luminosity-noise is so much easier to process (and/or to blend into grain) than colour noise to get a pleasing image.

In addition, during the shooting itself, I am solely focused on looking for B&W-images; with a colour-cam, I'm often trying a bit of both, which can easily lead to fewer keepers. It's a bit the same (for me) as a prime vs zoom; neither is "better", but in general I prefer the simplicity of a prime.

So I'd buy a K-1M immedately

Total agreement with both points in your last paragraph.  My experience is the same.

Regarding a K-1M, I'm not so sure.  I think I'd do better with a Leica Q2 mono, which is small, dedicated, and tough, with fast, accurate focusing.

Or....  Maybe a film camera and a 50 pack of Ilford HP-5 plus.  

Kobie M-C wrote:

Well, since a monochrome camera has no color filter array, the image quality, dynamic range and sharpness is vastly superior as is the iso capability with a much lower noise floor compared to a color sensor. You can't replicate those in software.

"Vastly superior"?

Are we talking about half a stop or a stop? sharpness ..  there I agree.

Anyway .. I would think that K-1 color would outperform K-3 III mono with the added benefit of having the possibility to use the color information to tweak the B&W conversion.

Best,

M

-- hide signature --

I am not a Pentax insider. I just have a unique way of gaining insight.

kodak had a similar product

MarBa wrote:

Kobie M-C wrote:

Well, since a monochrome camera has no color filter array, the image quality, dynamic range and sharpness is vastly superior as is the iso capability with a much lower noise floor compared to a color sensor. You can't replicate those in software.

"Vastly superior"?

Are we talking about half a stop or a stop? sharpness .. there I agree.

Anyway .. I would think that K-1 color would outperform K-3 III mono with the added benefit of having the possibility to use the color information to tweak the B&W conversion.

Best,

M

Here's the lowdown straight from a camera manufacturer.

https://www.red.com/red-101/color-monochrome-camera-sensors#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20monochrome%20sensors,all%2Dor%2Dnothing%20process.

MarBa wrote:

Kobie M-C wrote:

Well, since a monochrome camera has no color filter array, the image quality, dynamic range and sharpness is vastly superior as is the iso capability with a much lower noise floor compared to a color sensor. You can't replicate those in software.

"Vastly superior"?

Are we talking about half a stop or a stop? sharpness .. there I agree.

Anyway .. I would think that K-1 color would outperform K-3 III mono with the added benefit of having the possibility to use the color information to tweak the B&W conversion.

Best,

M

Monochrome sensors also handle noise in a different way (which I prefer). The grain is much finer and don't "eat up" smaller details.

Compare this two shots from regular Q2 (Q2) and Q2 Monochrome (Q2M)

https://www.reddotforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Q2-vs-Q2M-Pasta-ISO-6400.jpg

Notice that iso 6400 on Q2M is very clean, every little detail is still visible. Gradients and tones are much smoother on monochrome version.

https://www.reddotforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Q2-vs-Q2M-Vinegar-ISO-50000.jpg

Notice that the grain is much finer on Q@M at ISO 50000, tonality and contrast is also much better than color version of Q2.

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

kodak had a similar product

Digital camera with monochrome sensor?

Wallace Ross wrote:

If you want to shoot black and white pick up a cheap SLR maybe one with a Kmount and some black and white film. A monochrome DSLR is a distraction.

I don't like film. I don't like the experience, limitations and the final image quality (especially on 135 film). Apart from large format. I like LF shooting experience and I'm fine with LF image quality, but it's too expensive for me.

Romaner wrote:

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

kodak had a similar product

Digital camera with monochrome sensor?

Similar might be a bit optimistic as an assessment. It was a 2001-released APSH-format SLR, based on a Nikon film-body with a huge attachment with the sensor and electronics.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/classic-camera-review-the-kodak-dcs-760m

Sjak wrote:

Romaner wrote:

Tim Reidy Productions wrote:

kodak had a similar product

Digital camera with monochrome sensor?

Similar might be a bit optimistic as an assessment. It was a 2001-released APSH-format SLR, based on a Nikon film-body with a huge attachment with the sensor and electronics.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/classic-camera-review-the-kodak-dcs-760m

I see. Images still look pretty good.

Hi everyone,

the images in the Leica review and comments from other convinced me that there is indeed some advantage to Monochrome sensors. You get 2 stops advantage in noise at high ISO .. but at low ISO ... before the noise become a problem and starts "eating" the details ... there is almost no difference. I don't really see that you get more details from Monochrome (I was only looking at the comparison between SL2 and M10M).

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/05/bw-iso-showdown-2020-leica-m10-monochrom-vs-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m10-p-vs-sl2/

.. but I would argue that such sensor should NOT be in APS-C "sports" body such as K-3 III but rather in a full-frame K-1. If we got the 41 Mpx FF mono sensor that is in Leica M10M into K-1 .. I would consider it .. if price was right. But I would likely not pay more than about $500 premium over similar color version of K-1.

It would be a nice super low light camera for anything where you need clean B&W image and ISO is above 1600-3200.

Best,

Marek

MarBa wrote:

Hi everyone,

the images in the Leica review and comments from other convinced me that there is indeed some advantage to Monochrome sensors. You get 2 stops advantage in noise at high ISO .. but at low ISO ... before the noise become a problem and starts "eating" the details ... there is almost no difference. I don't really see that you get more details from Monochrome (I was only looking at the comparison between SL2 and M10M).

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/05/bw-iso-showdown-2020-leica-m10-monochrom-vs-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m10-p-vs-sl2/

.. but I would argue that such sensor should NOT be in APS-C "sports" body such as K-3 III but rather in a full-frame K-1. If we got the 41 Mpx FF mono sensor that is in Leica M10M into K-1 .. I would consider it .. if price was right. But I would likely not pay more than about $500 premium over similar color version of K-1.

It would be a nice super low light camera for anything where you need clean B&W image and ISO is above 1600-3200.

Best,

Marek

Yes, K1 Mk. 2 Monochrome and 645z Monochrome would be great cameras! I think that Ricoh/Pentax will consider making them if the K3 Mk. 3 Monochrome will sell well.

Wallace Ross wrote:

Funny thing is I shot 4x5 I just didn’t mention that. Yes there are challenges with shooting film but in comparison to spending thousands of dollars to only be able to create B&W digital images seems reasonable. *

let’s say you shoot 1000 keepers with your fancy new monochrome camera that’s $2.50 ish each. That makes even large format seem a little more economical.

* of course you could create colour images if you used colour filters and took separate images and then combined them back in the computer as colour channels…maybe I will just shoot some film instead.

Can you make focus - stacked image from LF film? This will not be practical at all, nor cheap. Also, in my country shooting LF is very hard (hard to find any LF film or paper, hard to find cameras in good or even working condition) and very expensive (around 30$ for one 4 by 5 BW frame, including processing and scanning).

Also I have a lot of keepers when I shoot digital cameras (but I'm very picky, so only few of them goes to print). I don't shoot bursts or anything like that.