lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

You make sense to me. I was shooting film longer ago before C41 b&w but with Plus-x and Tri-x etc developed in D-76 or HC-110. I pretty fully understand the b&w sensor business and don't see the slight resolution advantage of it at such a high price and all the changes it makes to the camera. I am more interested in future improvements to digital cameras and sensors as Fujifilm and Samsung seem to have plans for. Sony may have gone as far as they can with Bayer Array sensors.

JBRIII

I think the cameras cost more just because many aren't made. Leaving the filter off the sensor would add cost only in requiring a change in the production. Same for camera assembly, but if a lot is automated, then such changes are cost. Both Canon and Nikon have put out Set to versions of cameras, i.e., Canon 20, 60 and R models (Da, Ra). Only difference is a different not mirror, yet cameras are significant more expensive. Image a car production being changed to produce a few hundred cars with a different engine made just for those few hundred.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Very nice photo. There you have a clear justification for the monochrome sensor. That's worth the effort if you're going to do that kind of photography.

Hazmatman Loc: Santa Maria California

The "Bayer" filter blocks the infra red component from registering. It will not be just a monochrome camera unless you use a red filter.
PS can give you a reasonably realistic simulation of a BW IR photo.

Hazmatman Loc: Santa Maria California

The "Bayer" filter blocks the infra red component from registering. It will not be just a monochrome camera unless you use a red filter.
PS can give you a reasonably realistic simulation of a BW IR photo.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Actually, the Bayer Filter is not what blocks the IR. There is a cut UV-IR filter on top of the Bayer Matrix. Remove this filter, and the camera becomes IR sensitive.

On my modified mono sensor, I elected to not have the UV-IR filter which means that it has full IR capability. Because of that, I do have to use a filter when shooting. If I want just visible light, I have to use an external cut UV-IR filter. If I were not to do this, the IR component of light would focus differently than the visible light component and I would get a poor image.

I really haven't pursued IR with this modified mono sensor. But it is certainly capable of IR. Attached is an example of that same palm tree I previously had shown with a red filter. But this time is with an 850nm filter. The 850nm filter is really dark (to the human eye) and when I shot with it, I see that all the rich tonality of what I got with the red filter is gone. The camera responded to 850nm light just fine. But 850nm doesn't produce the same pleasing gray tones.

I will do more with IR in the future, but not so much all the way to 850nm. I have filters for 590nm, 630nm, 650nm and 720nm also. At 850nm, all color information is gone and the results are more blah.

(Download)

Photonerd5

A while back (maybe last year) I saw an advertisement for this conversion process on a Nikon 850 on this site. The example images were absolutely stellar. Although these pictures probably had been modified in post, I still was quite impressed. The $8,000 Leica black and white only camera provides strong black and white images as well. And it has an added advantage. It apparently provides reasonable pictures at ISO 100,000--which seem to be roughly equivalent to what an 850 would produce at something like ISO 6,400 or 12,800.

I think the questioner (and I) are asking if anyone has had experience with process. Does it interfere with auto focusing or other important camera functions??

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

On my modified Sony A6300, there is absolutely no impact on auto focus. Still works the same as it had before. And there is absolutely no affect with other camera functions. Everything works as before. The camera is totally unaware that it has been modified. And since it uses focusing on the sensor, there is no auto focus problems.

The only thing that is really impacted is that camera JPEGs will get demosaiced removing the intended benefit of having a mono sensor. The Leica does not have this limitation. But for the cost difference, I can live with it.

SouthShooter Loc: Southern USA

I agree! I think that’s a total waste of $1500!! 😳

JBRIII

I looked at the website and it stated that at least one type of focusing was lost. Also, the camera should have more resolution in the IR since all the pixels would see the IR not just those filtered for red in a color camera. This may also be true for the UV and any other filters used. I have attached a filter wheel to a Canon 60D, but one gets a macro effect due to the added distance of wheel is between camera and lens.

With any of this, the camera, Bayer filter, not filter and lens (glass type and coatings) affect exposure time, resolution, wavelengths range, etc., but photos can be obtained nevertheless without going all out. For example, the best UV response would require a black and white + full spectrum internal filter for about camera cost $ + $1500, and a special UV lens ($7000) + UV filter ($400 or more depending on size).
Maybe a total cost of $10,000.

The coatings on modern lenses also obstruct the UV, older lenses from 40's are said to be better. Some have removing the coatings, but chemicals do not work and polishing caused a soft image effect. Nikon makes a UV lens available from Company 7 in Laurel MD. There are older Nikon UV lenes, but they apparently go for as much as new one. There is another maker, but again not cheap. There is at least one person who made a UV lens from quartz and CaF2 lenses available from Edmund. While the glass would absorb some UV, I think the coatings used on telescope objectives would be less of a problem, no rare earth component used (La?) as used now on camera lenses.
Like many forms of photography, in my opinion, one can do IR and UV without all the best stuff, but for best results, exposure time, resolution, picture sharpness, etc., special equipment or modifications, can help. All reflecting optics also eliminate the lens/coating problem all the way out to the mid-infrared range (25,000 nm).

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

bwa

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Maybe for your photography... bwa

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

Yes, they did.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

Yessir for sure, however I have no experience with narrow and or mono either.

petrochemist Loc: UK

The Bayer filter does decrease the pixel count, but as just about all cameras released in the last 5 years have enough pixels already I don't see that's an issue!

Converting a colour image to B&W can involve far more than just desaturating. You can apply coloured filters to affect the relative brightness of colours in the scene & adjust the strength of those filters with sliders not many physical filters allow the intensity to be altered (IIRC some of the 'polarcolors' do). I wouldn't pat $15 to remove that colour ability from my cameras, even if I was only going to shoot 100% B&W

The conversion is slightly more complicated than the above. An optical layer of the same effective thickness as the Bayer filter will need to be fitted of the cameras focus will shift significantly. the firmware will need updating even with the same sensor going back in to stand any chance of shooting JPEG & even for RAW files custom software will be needed.

Using film as a B&W intermediate makes financial sense if you want to benefit from bigger sensors. 5x4 film is quite expensive but it's peanuts compared to 5x4" digital backs. The price isn't so significant with medium format but film still wins out if your not shooting thousands of images. With FF the cost is no longer such a factor. I'll not deny there are other joys from shooting film, but I'm lazy enough to stick with the digital route now.