Rugger

Has anyone converted a digital camera to monochrome using “MaxMax” company? If so, did it work? It cost around $1500.Thanks

Quixdraw Loc: x

A great many digital cameras have a Monochrome setting - failing that, changing to Monochrome is simple with nearly every photo editing software. You could easily get a good quality used Digital with Monochrome capability for a good deal less than $1,500!

BebuLamar

I think the OP meant to convert to real monochrome camera without the Bayer filter.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You could buy a film camera and shoot and process B&W film for the next few years for that amount.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Please let me know what kind of camera you have?

Quixdraw Loc: x

I think the OP meant to convert to real monochrome camera without the Bayer filter.
BebuLamar

Could be - I guess I can't tell the difference between "real" and Bayer filtered. A good monochrome photo is good monochrome regardless of method.

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

I agree. Am I missing something? I don't understand the willingness to spend a lot of money for something so easily available elsewhere. Can anyone explain in simple english and not describe how to make a camera?

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

I had asked the OP (Rugger) what kind of camera they have. The Canons and Nikons that I know of, can be set to Monochrome. In this regard, I am not sure why to permanently convert a camera. I have never heard of a Bayer Filter. The concept is old, but a have never seen a Bayer Filter.
As for a grand and a half that does not make much sense to me. You can do a substantial amount of correction with a computer and software for significantly less money. You can go out and buy a decent film camera. I have a Canon AE-1 and a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 in excellent condition. I can pop in a roll of Tri-X and I’m getting great photographs without post processing. In low light, Kodak and Ilford make an ASA film at 32000.

The cost of a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 is somewhat under $50. A roll of Kodak or Ilford B&W film is under $15. Processing for a roll of film is under $20. When you do the math it seems that spending money to convert a perfectly good camera may be a waste. As for converting a camera to Infrared it seems also a waste. A roll of Infrared film is somewhat higher to buy and process.

In either case it is difficult to tell the difference. So why spend all that money.

If my opinion offends the original poster, please accept my apology.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It's not easily available elsewhere. Only Leica makes two versions of such a camera: https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/LEICA-M-MONOCHROM A custom modification then like the OP is asking about becomes the only other option.

All other digital cameras have a color filter array in place over the sensor (Bayer array typically). And the color filter array has to be interpolated off (software) in order to generate a final image, including a B&W image. So there are a couple issues:
a) The color filters remove some light -- think of it as changing the base ISO of the camera. Most of our digital cameras have base ISOs values around 100 with some as low as 64 and others as high as 200. With the color filters removed we can get lower base ISO values.
b) The process of interpolating off the color filters in software has an impact on the resolution we get from the sensor. The filters are an interference factor and so removing them can result in a boost in overall resolution.

On the flip side however recording the original color scene data gives us access via software during processing to manipulate the translation of color into tone. A monochrome camera losses that ability and has to rely on filters placed over the lenses which is ultimately less precise.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Can't see the reasoning behind converting a camera to pure Mono when you can do that in the settings of most if not all modern cameras and software. I'd spend that kind of money on a new lens.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

For $1,500 I'll use the conversion in the editor thank you.
Then I'll still have a color original.
Just what I need, a color AND a B&W camera.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I believe it's the other way around.

If you remove the Bayer filter you let in more light so you need to reduce the exposure with a smaller aperture or faster shutter speed. In effect, the base ISO is higher. That's why the M240 (color) has a base ISO of 200 while the M246 (monochrome) has a base ISO of 320.

When removing the Bayer array you also need to replace the firmware so that it treats each pixel as independent value that does not require demosaicing when the camera's JPEG is created. That's where the extra resolution comes from. Your computer software also needs to be aware of this so that it does not perform the unnecessary demosaicing step.

You are right that the downside of a monochrome sensor is losing the ability to differentiate colors during the raw conversion. You can't make that up with glass filters (which also offset the increase in ISO).

Compared to the earlier 24MP Monochrom cameras, a 43-45MP Bayer array camera gives you the best of both worlds and the final resolution is still more than any lens most of us can afford or need.

I compared the price of a Monochrom or even the cost of a 24MP camera converted to monochrome to the price of a Z7 plus a couple of adapters and went with the Z7 option.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Bayer filer is part of the sensor and the monochrome lovers swear it degrades the Image Quality.
But with in camera and in processing app conversion being so easy I see no reason to spend that much money to get monochrome (it is basically removal of the sensor, removal of the color filter layers and re-install the sensor - or just replace it with another sensor and firmware for said sensor)
As stated I still have a couple of 35 mm cameras and I can just shoot B&W film then scan the negatives.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Yep, thinking backwards there for a minute.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

That's the kicker for me right there. If you're going to get serious about B&W then you're going to carry a collection of filters with you. You need at least a yellow one, orange one, green one maybe a red and blue one and if you're extra fussy there's the medium yellow versus the light yellow etc. I remember back in the day carrying and using those, AND they don't get you half of what's possible now via software. Try using an orange filter for one part of the photo and a green one for another part of the photo -- piece of cake with any decent processing software. If the monochrome camera doubled the resolution which it doesn't come close to, I wouldn't trade that for creating B&W photos from color raw originals where I have control over the color to tone translation.

To put that another way: If monochrome cameras were more available and in fact cheaper since they didn't have the CFA installed, I'd pay the extra money to get the CFA assuming I was serious about doing the best possible B&W work.