B&W sensor only?-- Merged--

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But I'd rather have Epson put out a dedicated bw printer.

 

There's no need for dedicated B/W printers. Just use gray inks with a suitable color printer, e.g. those by Lyson.

[ThorkilB]

I might, if its cheap enough. B&W, just one lens, a 21mm...simple, primitive, no bullshit...back to basis...might be a refreshing idea...to let the creativity grow from that...hhmm..could, in fact, be an attractive new philosophy and way of thinking

Thorkil

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[IkarusJohn]

No.

 

If I want black & white, I either use Silver Efex Pro 2, or I use my M3 (it only has Tri-X in it as I have no use for slides or colour negative film).

 

I think this is a have. Leica is already a niche maker, and they have said they want to move into the broader market - that isn't through a small percentage of what is already a small market.

 

Interesting concept though - imagine the comments - "Wow, that's an old time camera! It's digital? Wow, it's pretending to be old, but it's not! It's only black & white? ..."

[Jeff S]

There's no need for dedicated B/W printers. Just use gray inks with a suitable color printer, e.g. those by Lyson.

 

Well, Cone inks, too. But I'd still like to see Epson play in this field. Using third party inks in their machines is not always seamless and, if they did it, they could optimize and continually improve the ink/printer interface as they've done with their color inks on every new product iteration.

 

Plus the first round of inks would be included with the printer.

 

Jeff

[Printmaker]

Yes, but as far as I've been able to discover you would have a B&W image that was equivalent to a desaturated colour image, and that is almost always a poor image tonally

 

Not necessarily. You are not filtering the light so there is at least one less surface. And you are not using a processor to assemble the image in camera or software to develop the image. If the sensor behaves like the old Kodak B&W sensor from their DCS line (DCS760m) or like PhaseOne's new back, it should yield great results.

 

It could be a whole new world for Leica digital users.

 

It might be worth your while reading this article from 2004.

 

Kodak 760m Review

Edited March 16, 2012 by Printmaker
typo- date change

[Raul]

Well, Cone inks, too. But I'd still like to see Epson play in this field. Using third party inks in their machines is not always seamless and, if they did it, they could optimize and continually improve the ink/printer interface as they've done with their color inks on every new product iteration.

 

Plus the first round of inks would be included with the printer.

 

Jeff

 

+1 on third party inks. I think it's an interesting niche worth looking at. Imagine if they "partnered" with the bw Leica for this, eh?

[c.poulton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I might, if its cheap enough. B&W, just one lens, a 21mm...simple, primitive, no bullshit...back to basis...might be a refreshing idea...to let the creativity grow from that...hhmm..could, in fact, be an attractive new philosophy and way of thinking

Thorkil

 

Nice idea. Although I am solely a film user, this does appeal to me - a lot! It resolves (for me personally) a lot of the reasons why I still shoot film and not digital. If the quality is there, this is something that I might seriously consider buying. (I might have to sell a kidney to finance it though!)

 

 

Christian

[Jeff S]

+1 on third party inks. I think it's an interesting niche worth looking at. Imagine if they "partnered" with the bw Leica for this, eh?

 

But my point was to have Epson do it and provide an alternative to using third party inks.

 

Jeff

[charlesphoto99]

There's already a great b&w (and color) 3rd party printer on the market. It's called the HP Z3200. Uses only the black and grey inks (unless one tones the photo of course), no clogging, and longer archival life than the Epson.

 

Of course they're not perfect (mine has freeze up issues)... if one of the big three were to make an a truly perfectly functioning printer that would cost the consumer $10k plus (i'm talking wide format). Instead they offer a no-margin product that just gets by and then kill the customer for inks and service.

[Jeff S]

...Uses only the black and grey inks (unless one tones the photo of course), no clogging, and longer archival life than the Epson....

 

Not the point...the HP z3200 has only 3 blacks/greys, no different than the Epson printers (the 4th is a substitute matte black). We're discussing the potential for OEM inks equivalent to 3rd party inks, like Cone, that have at least 7 shades of grey, not 3.

 

Modern Epsons also rarely have clog issues, which are easily resolved in any case with a quick clean cycle that takes little time and uses little ink. As far as longevity, I think Wilhelm Research rated the K3 color inks for well over a hundred years, under glass, and 200 years for b/w; for dark storage, about 300 years. That will suffice for me.

 

Jeff

Edited March 16, 2012 by Jeff S

[Printmaker]

About 10 years ago I ran Cone inks in an Epson 3000. That printer had mechanical traits that would test the patience of a saint but the results were good. However, the results from the modern Epson printers using three black inks are excellent. There is really no need to return to the Cone Inks.

 

If you are having a problem making good black and white prints from a late model Epson, then it is more likely a profiling issue. Canned profiles tend to lower the midtones which improves saturation but hurts the 3/4 tonal separation. Making the profiles yourself or using a good RIP will help as will a small midtone adjustment using curves in PS. The problem is really no different that the dot gain seen on offset presses. An uncorrected 10% midtone gain can ruin a good photo.

 

As for HP printers, well my livelihood depends on my printers running all day every day. I use Epsons.

[Jeff S]

About 10 years ago I ran Cone inks in an Epson 3000. That printer had mechanical traits that would test the patience of a saint but the results were good. However, the results from the modern Epson printers using three black inks are excellent

 

Cone inks have come a long way in 10 years as far as ease of use and other characteristics. I too, however, rely on a stock Epson (3800) for b/w prints using only custom profiles. The results are wonderful if I do my job well. Depending on the print, though, the same file run on a friend's Epson loaded with Cone inks will sometimes result in subtly richer gradation of tones.

 

Having said that, the system one uses goes only so far. Just as in the darkroom days, two people using the same gear will often get very different results. To extract the most from any system, where every small increment of improvement matters, requires not just the right product and product knowledge, but excellent judgment as well as excellent technique. That part will never change, trite as it may be.

 

Jeff

[charlesphoto99]

The modern Epson's are really good printers I'm sure. My problem was after the clogging experiences with a 4800 I said never again. Also, I got a screaming deal on a 44" HP (rebates, etc) which the print job I had to do pretty much paid for it in the first week. Problem was, even if I had wanted to get (and could afford) a 9900 there was no way I could get it down the stairs to the basement studio! End of story for me....

[Jeff S]

Yep, early experiences with a printer (and other products) are everything; like it and there's a halo over the brand, but have a bad experience and there's often no going back.

 

I have a friend who had a great first experience with Canon; his impression of the brand from that point was positive. I know others who hate Canons based on a bad experience. Same with Epson. Your experience was bad, and you won't go back. Mine was good and I'll buy another when it finally craps out.

 

I don't know of any printer that people uniformly rave about, and that are consistently problem free, at least not the consumer variety. But I know that all the inks cost a lot.

 

Jeff

 

PS Sorry to keep this thread somewhat off topic.

[Printmaker]

Yep, early experiences with a printer (and other products) are everything; like it and there's a halo over the brand, but have a bad experience and there's often no going back....

 

... But I know that all the inks cost a lot.

 

Jeff

 

PS Sorry to keep this thread somewhat off topic.

 

So true. Anybody who ever ran an Iris or an early Encad (Kodak) knows this all too well. Even all of us Epson 9000 users were little more than beta testers for Epson. Our work-arounds became standard features in later models. We kept a forum going for years with our how to fix this or thats.

 

Yeah, my ink bill runs $2,000 to $3,000 per month.

 

And yeah, let's get back to the hypothetical B&W Leica. It is something to lust after while the printers hum.

[kcnarf]

Someone on this thread of the forum has said that perhaps by b&w (or b+w) sensor was meant B+W sensor. (B+W is Schneider Optics.) No one has responded to this speculation.

[menos I M6]

Let's rename this thread "The EPSON printer ink alternatives for B&W printing" ;-)

 

I use a Canon 9500 with Canon pigment inks - it prints fantastic B&W on different papers (I use several RedRiver fine art papers).

 

Printer case closed / back to B&W sensors …

 

For me the biggest incentive about a true B&W sensor is:

 

- Same file size as current color sensor with higher perceived image detail due to tripling used sensor wells + simplification of filtering.

- better tonality due to more B&W pixels and less filtration

- higher ISO speeds obtainable (remember, those darned color filters rob light)

- possible further low light improvement due to potential further downscaling of files, as perceived detail grows (you can print larger with the same numerical resolution, or downscale resolution for noise reduction and still print same sizes).

 

I really don't care about color shooters "Meh!" and "Nah!" or "But…!", I just want the technically most ideal solution to my task - shooting in true B&W.

 

If a true small production run of M9-Ti with completely custom machined Ti cases, new frame illumination device and involvement of a known 3rd party design house (expensive) is possible, I don't think, an off the shelf M9-P with a customized sensor filtration, firmware and involved electronics should be possible as well.

I bet my beaten M8.2, that Seal would buy one.

 

At a reasonable price, I would buy one as well (don't dream, it will be less expensive or even at same price point, as a M9 or future M10 - it MUST be more expensive, to make this undertaking economically viable for Leica, as of the involved development costs and lower estimated production series.

[ns_ng]

If you need a M8/M9 with a b&w sensor, just send your camera to B&W Conversion. They will remove the CFA and convert this to a b&w camera.

 

N.S. Ng

[jaapv]

not a very good idea. These guys remove the microlens layer as well (they have to to get at the Bayer filter) and as we all know the shifted microllenses are essential for the performance of the M8/9.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[kcnarf]

But once more I remind one and all that the reported "b&w" [or "b/w"] sensor may have been an erroneous rendition of "B+H", which to my understanding is essentially Schneider Optics. No participant in this thread of the forum has yet responded to that speculation.