jburlinson Loc: Austin, TX

Pentax has fairly recently issued the PENTAX K-3 Mark III Monochrome, based on its flagship APS-C model with 25.73 megapixels.

It's likely that few if any UHH folks have a copy of this camera; but I would love to hear from anyone who does.

As a larger question, I'd like to hear from those who have a different brand of monochrome only camera. My guess is that it would be a Leica, although I am aware of companies who will convert various cameras into mono only.

In your experience, do you believe that monochrome only provides a specific benefit to the photographer who likes to shoot B&W? Is it appreciably better than shooting raw and then processing as B&W?

I guess my bottom line question is -- is it worth it? The Pentax is a little over $2K.

Thanks for considering this request.

User ID

As I understand it a true mono only camera has two distinct benfits.

•1. One stop greater sensitivity vs same sensor with bayer filters.

•2. Different processing regime, with no need for any demosaicing, claimed to be sharper than mono conversions which all still perform demosaicing cuz the image processing is still being done by the RGB imaging engine.

If ever I encounter a reeeeeeally cheap used Pentax mono Ill be tempted cuz I have some Kmount lenses.

----------------------------------

Despite the above mentioned benefits an advantage of a converted EVF camera is that youll have WYSIWYG monochrome viewing. As with BW film, an SLR shows you a color view even tho youre shooting for monochrome results.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

In my experience, what makes a good (or great) monochrome image is very different from what makes for a good color image. I have never been a fan of desaturating color images to make b&w images, and have seen very few truly worthwhile images created that way.

The reason I would be interested in having a dedicated monochrome camera, and where I see the real benefit, is that it just completely removes color from the equation. It requires the photographer to think and see in black and white and to commit to that medium. The improved vision ends up producing better photographs.

Many folks prefer to save raw files and desaturate those that capture their fancy later. They claim that the ability to manipulate the color channels first gives them more "control." That's true, of course, but it can't add substance to a poorly conceived image.

So I would endorse use of a dedicated monochrome camera by a dedicated black & white photographer. A photographer who just responds occasionally to a fit of fancy is probably ahead with a color sensor and processor.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

NASA often uses black & white cameras on their space probes to get the most bang for their buck. When shooting a something that barely moves, introducing color filters in front of the lens itself and then reconstructing the image from several other shots with a different color filter, it is actually possible to get a full resolution colored picture out of the black & white sensor.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

We are all different and we all have different a different taste and achieve different results with our shootings. If I have a camera that shoots primarily color and in my humble opinion I think I have the best of both worlds, I can shoot color and I can shoot b&w.
My monochrome images are edited with Topaz B&W Effects 2, some of them with Affinity Photo. Contrary to the gentleman that stated that he has never seen a good b&w image from desaturated colors I do have seen many beautiful images treated that way and some of them were shot emulating Ansel Adams in Yosemite. I was cruising once aboard a known cruise line and I was admiring the excellent quality of portraits in b&w shot by the photographer working for that ship. The images were of excellent quality. I asked the photographer what camera she was using and she told me a Nikon set to shoot monochrome. The difference she said was that the lab working for her knew that and proceeded accordingly to print the monochrome images. We did not discuss how the lab was doing it.

My limited experience with digital monochrome images has not been bad. I have used the color image with the Topaz software and I have taken the image to a professional lab that works with monochrome images. The results have been spectacular to me. For several years I worked in a darkroom processing and printing monochrome images shot with film. Before the introduction of B&W Effects by Topaz I was very frustrated trying to make good monochrome images from digital. It took me sometime in spite of the excellent software by Topaz to find the tonalities I was used to in a good print but eventually I found what I had to do to get them and ever since I have been fine with my monochrome images. I know someone else will have a different experience to mine.

I do not use monochrome images like I did in the past and you will seldom see me shooting to convert to monochrome. If I do I know what to do to get images to my satisfaction.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I had the Bayer array removed from my A7 II (24MP) and can confirm both of these differences.

If you remove the color filter array (CFA, commonly Bayer) from a color sensor, more light reaches the sensor. A camera set to ISO 100 behaves as though it is recording at about ISO 200. But the meter in the camera reacts to that and reduces the exposure accordingly. The ISO settings in a camera that never had a color array would actually display the correct ISO.

On removing the CFA, the camera's JPEG will display a magenta image unless you also set it to display as B&W. But the camera will have used demosaicing to create the JPEG so you don't want to use it. Instead, shoot raw and use Monochrome2DNG to convert the raw file to a DNG which sets a flag to tell most raw conversion programs to skip the demosaicing process. This step is critical to obtain the primary benefit, an increase in sharpness. A camera designed to capture only B&W in the first place will already have this flag set.

When I compare the results for the converted A7 II to the Z7 (45.7MP) using the same lens, the sharpness is too close to tell them apart showing that there is an increase of about 100% in area resolution, about a 40% increase in linear sharpness.

But there is a lot more to it than just these mechanical differences.

A scene with good apparent color contrast might not actually have enough tonal contrast since two adjacent colors might have similar luminance. Although you can separate the colors during the raw conversion the side effects may not be optimal. Since this adjustment is often done to darken a blue sky, traditional color filters can help if you are using a monochrome camera but they are unnecessary if the CFA is present.

By viewing the image on the camera's LCD as a B&W image you can judge the amount of tonal contrast that will come through when the color contrast is no longer involved. This can be useful even if you don't remove the CFA and just convert the color image to B&W on your computer.

JBRIII

I once found an article on the web that showed a definite increase in resolution for a monochrome versus color camera with same number of pixels. Many Astronomy cameras for amateurs are monochrome with filter wheels used to create a final color image. Also one can use filters other than RGB for specific bands of interest. Removing the hot filter would make the best camera for UV for example as the Bayer does the limit the UV getting to the sensor. Debayering, as stated early, can be done, but can cost as much, or did, as this camera. Of course, for the best UV one needs an all quartz and CaF2 lens which runs around $6000 new or used. I have wondered why no one other than Lecia ($10,000 new I believe) made one.
By the way, filter wheels can be added to DLSRs, but changes the lens spacing and thus FL, I know as I did it. I think using a filter wheel with the newer cameras, i.e., adapt a Canon R, use older lens, replace the RF adapter for such lens with the filter wheel and spacers if needed, would solve the FL problem. One could then should static objects with filters from UV thru IR.

JBRIII

According to Petapixel (April 23) they were selling faster than they could be made!

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

I also have the Sony a7ii converted to B&W. I agree with everything he noted. I was initially impressed with the increase resolution. There is a subtle difference between a converted Color to B&W and the a7ii conversion. I find the images from my B&W a7ii to feel and look closer shooting in film. Being a long time B&W photographer I prefer the image from my converted a7ii. I use color filters in the same way as did with film.

My used a7ii convert was about $1500. I would like to see images from the Pentax. I have seen the Leica images , As with all Leica images they are First Class, But way out of my price range. It's just a matter of taste and "do I like it"

converted a7ii to B&W with orange filter

User ID

Hardly any different than a typical digital camera including your phone. IOW, its a another color camera.

srg

I'm still trying to teach my dog to speak.
However, I'm led to believe by scientists that he is color blind, so to him it would not matter.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

Physlab Loc: Portland, OR

Your request posed a question for me. Would anyone be able to demonstrate the difference between an image made using a monochrome camera and the identical subject made in color but converted to black and white? Is the difference noticeable?

Lowell

10MPlayer Loc: California

Great question.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Yes, These were shot within 30 min of each other . The color is with Sony a7iii . Then the color converted was done on apple photos to mono. No alteration to either. The last is the converted Sony a7ii B&W with red filter. Enjoy

Sony a7iii

(Download)

Color converted in Apple Photos to "mono"

(Download)

converted sony a7ii

(Download)