Jump to content

Dedicated B&W camera anyone?


ross nolly

Recommended Posts

<p >How many people would be interested in a full frame dedicated black and white camera

? Something similar to a current D700/300, around 12mp and hopefully the dynamic range of b&w negativ

e film. Or

maybe a current D700/300 body with b&w filter to cut down on manufacturing costs..</p>

<p >Would

it be easier to design a dedicated B&W sensor with a huge dynamic range than a colour sensor?</p>

<p >Would it be difficult to have picture styles similar to what you have in Alien Skin Exposure 2 (& sim

ilar programm

es) that you can programme in to replicate film styles and be able to change them in camera?</p>

<p >I wouldn&rsquo

;t have a clue abo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I do a lot of conversion to B&W from RAW, almost everything I shoot for myself. I use two or three methods depending on the results I want. When I shoot for other people most of the time the final result is in color.<br>

I can do either or both with the same frame with one camera so I don't see the advantage of having to carry around another body dedicated to just B&W. Seems to me I would be giving up versatility and choice.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>All sensors are b&w before the bayer filter is added. Quite a number of "industrial" cameras are b&w only, or use other methods to capture an RGB image.<br>

If there was a retail market, you can bet they would be readily available. You just need a bayer-less sensor and different firmware, and of course, a market for a hundred thousand units or so.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kodak made a B&W DSLR for a while.</p>

<p>A native B&W camera would have a number of advantages. Without a Bayer matrix the sensor would be easier to build and be more sensitive.</p>

<p>Since most people seem ahppy enough with B&W conversions from color, I'd guess the market for a pure B&W camera would be small. I'd certainly like to see a low cost B&W "digital rebel" type camera at a price under $1000, but I don't expect anyone will make one.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>Could a b&w sensor have a wider dynamic range? If it did it would be a terrific advantage.</em></p>

<p>Wider that the slightly larger than 12 stops of dynamic range of the D700 at ISO 200 (when you shoot 14 bit per channle NEFs ?<em> </em></p>

<p>A problem if you are aserious B&W digital photographer is that you would give up the ability to apply both overall (global) and localized application of customized monochrome contrast (Red, Orange, Yellow, MAgenta, Gren and Blue Green) contast filters . You'd be stuck with either the monochrome sensitivity of the sensor or the global only effects and potential image degradation of slapping a piece of glass in front of your lens.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p><em>Oh God, you make it so complicated. Just use black and white film!</em></p>

<p>And carry around a bunch of contrast filers and worry about what chemistry you are are goign to process it in and how long and how to keep the chemistry temperature stabilized and all of the fluids clean so you don't get grit permanently embedded in the negative . Also mixing and maintaining your fixer and developer and keeping the reels and tanks clean. Yep that certainly is a lot less complicated Norman! I love film and I hope they never stop making it but processing it right ain't easy if you are a seriously committed film based photographer. <em><br /> </em></p>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Since most people seem happy enough with B&W conversions from color</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's not to be happy about? Shooting in color, even with color film, lets me try out all kinds of mixes of component colors in conversion to B&W. I can pull off dozens of different pictures from the color RAW or even jpg image.</p>

<p>Is shooting in B&W a test of some kind of ritual purity? Or are you interested in results?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have been thinking about this for YEARS! As previously stated, Kodak and others already make the chips, so why not? I'm sure that something like this would acquire something of a cult following (that i would gladly become a part of!).<br />really, imagine the possibilities - superhigh ISOs and DR... i'm indifferent on the selective filter thing since i dont use filters anyway...<br>

also, Leaf supposedly made a B&W only prototype back a couple years ago that was incredible... I wish they had followed through with that- 16bit black and white. jeez.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Why not just use a dedicated B&W film camera? (joke)</p>

<p>Question: When you shoot B&W, don't you like to use color filters to emphasize different elements of the picture? Well, instead of using filters ahead of the lens, why not use the color filters that make up the Bayer array? With the color information available in postprocessing, you can apply different curves to the different channels to emphasize different elements of the photo. You can even rotate hue to put your emphasized/de-emphasized element right squarely in the color channel where you want it. It'll look pretty funky in color, but when you grayscale it after all the manipulations, it will come alive in ways that were never possible in the B&W film days.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>PN member Huw Finny from the UK, who hasn't posted I don't think for ages, was just about to put together his digital Leica M2 with monochrome sensor before work obligations got in the way. From what he described it was going to be a great little machine. The cool thing about it was, according to the sensor's manufacturer, that you didn't have to worry about the angles of the light rays from the rear of the lens.</p>

<p>A good reason to have a b&w digital camera is that if you want something to be b&w and explicitly not colour, then there is no way (apart from colorizing the frame) for anyone to access a colour version. Of course you can do this with conventional cameras: just delete the RAW file and keep only a greyscale TIFF. But I suspect the mono sensor would be sharper and slightly more sensitive.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"I love film and I hope they never stop making it but processing it right ain't easy if you are a seriously committed film based photographer"</p>

<p>Exactly, both have their advantages but both need skill and knowledge to master. I love film as well and I'm very fond of my Delta 100 but digital has some great advantages as well as Ellis already pointed out. A dedicated b&w camera sounds like a great idea but that's just all. There are too many drawbacks. Development and succes of any camera have never been dependent of the promarket because the numbers are relatively small. It's therefore the consumer market that would have to buy such a camera in great numbers and I don't see that happen. No chance.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Problem with a b&w sensor is there is only one "film emulson" (isn't this a film user's criticism against digital, that it all looks alike?). Having an RGB image and converting it to b&w is creating a "film emulsion" that characterizes the exposure.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'd want a very plain BW DSLR: no color, no AA filter, no IR filter (although most people would probably want the IR filter). This would give a high-res, low-noise camera with excellent acutance. With a color camera, one obviously gets more flexibility in post-processing, but the BW camera should have better sensitivity due to the removal of the bayer filter. Since people have successfully shot BW for ages, I don't see the loss of flexibility as a problem; one can always take out the color camera when filters are not enough.<br>

Realistically, I don't expect such a camera to be marketed, at least any time soon. Maybe when DSLR technology matures even more and becomes more of a commodity.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Development and succes of any camera have never been dependent of the promarket because the numbers are relatively small.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh come on, Canon gifted us with the 20da a couple years back- those manfacturers can get away with making small production specialized cameras, although maybe not in this economy (unfortunatley).</p>

<p>Another interesting thing would be if there was a company like LifePixel that did B&W conversions...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Don't allow the process to get in the way of the pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That raises kind of an interesting point. Film is not "natural" --it has built in limitations in color sensitivity, response to UV, etc. etc. So just shooting without filters, etc is simply accepting one set of limitations and privileging that choice. Why is a UV filter "bad"? If that's ok, why not a yellow filter, and so on? What about the differences between orthochromatic, panchromatic, IR, and other film types. Which is more "real"?<br>

By choosing to accept whatever the "film+camera" gives you, are you not letting the supposed <em>lack</em> of process "get in the way of the pictures"?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Michael Ouzounian - <em>"Another interesting thing would be if there was a company like LifePixel that did B&W conversions"</em></p>

<p>I actually discussed my efforts doing exactly that in a response to Ross Nolly's post on dpReview (he posts there as "nakidphotos". The thread over there seems much less negative).</p>

<p><a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30308856">Here's the link. Ross Nolly is everywhere!</a></p>

<p><em>"Oh come on, Canon gifted us with the 20da a couple years back"</em></p>

<p>That only requited changing the IR blocking filter to one with less visible deep red (h-Alpha) blocking, and more IR blocking. They also used it as an excuse to try their first experimental liveview implementation.</p>

<p>Bob Atkins - <em>"I'd certainly like to see a low cost B&W "digital rebel" type camera at a price under $1000, but I don't expect anyone will make one."</em></p>

<p>I'll probably be adding at least $600 to even the lowest cost camera I convert (probably Nikon D90). I won't be doing any Canons. There are three of us (that I know of) who have attempted monochrome conversions. My Nikon D100 was successful. A friend's Nikon D2X was successful. These were done with failty common aliaphatic solvents. A Canon 20D was reported to have met with dismal failure, either the microlenses or the Bayer filters (or both) are epoxy based, and cannot be dissolved with readily available chemicals.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

<p>Joseph; <br>

"Here's the link. Ross Nolly is everywhere!" does that mean that Joseph Wisniewski is everywhere too? :-))

<p>It’s always interesting to hear other people’s opinions. And as you pointed out, the tone of the replies to this thread has been totally different to the other one…..<br>

Actually, I hardly ever post on the other site, it’s WAY too negative, but do read some good info. It’s just hardly ever worth posting.<br>

Thank you everyone for their input!</p>

 

</p>

</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I bought one in 1992. A Kodak DCS200ir. It also does Infrared. It's old.<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1431/1328048731_675a477bf8_b.jpg" alt="" /> If Leica is not considering one for a version of the M8, I doubt anyone else will do it. Would solve a number of technical issues with the RGB Mosaic Filter and limited sensor to flange distance.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...