Should Leica produce a Monochrome Digital Camera?

[brianv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Monochrome Digital Cameras are a thing of the past. Most of today's Digital Photographers have not seen images made from monochrome digital cameras, let alone used one. With 10 megapixels and above, Black and White digital conversions are reasonable alternatives.

 

But what has been sacrificed by putting the Mosaic Filter over the digital sensor? What is to be gained by a "real" monochrome camera?

 

1) Twice the Sensitivity;

2) No need for Microlenses;

3) no aliasing

4) Infrared "leakage" is not an issue.

 

I've seen some black and white conversions from the M8. Are they good enough? Would their be a big enough market for a Monochrome M8?

 

All I can say is, I would buy one. I keep my 16 year old Monochrome Digital Camera Running.

 

Here are some recent images from it, RAW files, converted to JPEG using Photoshop.

 

First image is rescaled to 900x600, the second image is a 1x crop. I left the hot-pixels in. Not bad after 16 years.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

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

[brianv]

With the M8 "upgrades" being offered, and talk of a full-frame camera, I would like to see a Monochrome camera back on the marketplace. It would greatly simplify the design of a full-frame camera. And if there is a group of photographers that want to work in black and white, I suspect it is a Leica bunch.

 

On a humorous note- the 2.5 inch spinning disk drive in the camera acts like a gyroscope. Makes it easy to hold the camera steady for hand-held close-ups like the one shown.

[Bob Ross]

I think the monochrome digital camera is a good idea and needs a current model to test the market. I've always thought a P&S digital monochrome camera would be a good place to start, from a marketing risk angle. Which of the camera mfrs care enough about photography to creat a cult pocket monochrome camera, even as a limited run?

Bob

[Guest stnami]

Shoot RAW, post process in conversion you have all your filters at your disposal ........... bnw camera:used to think it was a good idea....now I think it is a illogical dumb idea ...use film!!! better results

[Riley]

you still need microlenses

[devtank]

Monochrome Digital Cameras are a thing of the past. Most of today's Digital Photographers have not seen images made from monochrome digital cameras, let alone used one. With 10 megapixels and above, Black and White digital conversions are reasonable alternatives.

 

But what has been sacrificed by putting the Mosaic Filter over the digital sensor? What is to be gained by a "real" monochrome camera?

 

1) Twice the Sensitivity;

2) No need for Microlenses;

3) no aliasing

4) Infrared "leakage" is not an issue.

 

I've seen some black and white conversions from the M8. Are they good enough? Would their be a big enough market for a Monochrome M8?

 

All I can say is, I would buy one. I keep my 16 year old Monochrome Digital Camera Running.

 

Here are some recent images from it, RAW files, converted to JPEG using Photoshop.

 

First image is rescaled to 900x600, the second image is a 1x crop. I left the hot-pixels in. Not bad after 16 years.

 

Monochrome camera?? Tell me more!

[Bob Ross]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shoot RAW, post process in conversion you have all your filters at your disposal ........... bnw camera:used to think it was a good idea....now I think it is a illogical dumb idea ...use film!!! better results

The raw approach does have its advantages, but the conversion processes usually cuts resolution as a trade off. This question of what is the best approach is why I think that a P&S example would be a way to actually find out what the comparative advantages might be. Just think of the new Sony 13.6MP sensor that would have a lovely increase in grain/noise as you go up the ISO trail. Instead of doing color profiles, there could be noise profiles. No CA, no chroma noise, full resolution and we'd have a lot of new stuff to debate and complain about...

Bob

[Bob Ross]

you still need microlenses

And no bayer filters, but maybe a general color profile filter to correct the spectral sensativity of the sensor.

[brianv]

With the thickness of the mosaic filter gone, and not having to worry about light rays passing through a color filter element and falling onto the wrong (adjacent) detector element as will happen towards the edges of the array; wouldn't the design of any microlens array be simplified if not eliminated?

 

For the spectral flattening filter- the response of the newer arrays is generally very flat when compared to earlier arrays. The blue response is greatly imrpoved compared to the 1st generation digital cameras.

[mjh]

you still need microlenses

Not necessarily. What you gain in sensitivity by employing microlenses is lost again through the use of colour filters, so one could argue that without those filters, microlenses aren’t necessary. There might still be a small net gain in sensitivity if you have neither.

[brianv]

> use film!!! better results

 

CAN'T ARGUE WITH THAT!

Unless you want to do Infrared. Then a Silicon based sensor is more sensitive than film, goes out a little bit farther to 1.1um.

 

Kodak DCS200ir with R60 filter, scaled down to 900x600:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[carstenw]

You would still need the microlenses if you wanted to do one of two things: 1) make an M. You need them to combat vignetting, and 2) Remove aliasing. As long as the pixel array doesn't catch all the incoming light (there are gaps between pixels), the captured light would be an approximation and there would be aliasing.

 

Btw, infrared is still a problem in B&W. For example, some black suits would become much lighter, ruining wedding photography.

[dugby]

As my L1 has become my main shooter, I often use my D2 setup for RAW, and also have the display set for B&W.

 

It's great fun, as the curious Joe Public is intrigued by the old-fashioned D2, particularly as I tell him it's an old style camera that I've adapted to B&W (no lies here...), and promptly show him the B&W images on the LCD.....

It really confuses them......

 

 

Anyway I'm finding the D2 at ISO 200 and 400 in B&W to have some quite highly acceptable characteristics over colour at those ISO's.

[brianv]

Monochrome camera?? Tell me more!

 

 

"Back in the Day", when digital cameras were new, Kodak had different versions of the same basic CCD array. You could order your camera as color with the Mosaic Filter (Bayer Filter starting with the 200 series), Monochrome with the IR cut filter, or Infrared with coated/clear glass over the array. There was even a color-infrared camera made up on special order. The camera stayed the same, electronics stayed the same, the software/firmware changed depending on the array used. The last monochrome camera that was "off-the-shelf" was the 6MPixel Kodak DCS760m using a KAF-6300 array. That array was available as monochrome or color. A little history- Kodak charged an Extra $4000 for the Infrared version of the camera. So no complaints about M8 prices OR its infrared capability!

 

The array that is made for the M8 is available in color only, with an integrated Bayer filter. But this is a production feature, and it should be possible to "leave that step out". As was done with the KAF-6300 and KAF-1600 series. A little history- Kodak charged an Extra $4000 for the Infrared version of the camera.

[brianv]

The infrared leakage does not go away, but a lighter shade of grey is much less noticeable than magenta. Aliasing in any digitized image can always be a problem, but Color aliasing is much more pronounced in an image. I'll have to put a Hot Mirror filter on my camera and try it. I normally keep an R60 on it to get rid of that "visible leakage" (humor).

 

Vignetting is an issue. Of course, with coded lenses it can always be corrected in software. Essentially, a non-uniformity correction except it is a function of distance from the center of the image and the lens used. Still, I would like to see some sample images comparing images from a Monochrome array with some non-retrofocus wide-angle lenses.

[mjh]

You would still need the microlenses if you wanted to do one of two things: 1) make an M. You need them to combat vignetting, and 2) Remove aliasing. As long as the pixel array doesn't catch all the incoming light (there are gaps between pixels), the captured light would be an approximation and there would be aliasing.

Medium format cameras generally don’t use microlenses. For example, of Hasselblad’s current models, only the H3DII-31 has microlenses; the H3DII-39 and H3DII-22 do without. In theory, this could cause problems with aliasing, but in practice, no such problems are observed.

 

As to vignetting, microlenses are not the solution, but the problem. The vignetting problem that offset microlenses are designed to solve was created by using microlenses in the first place. While there would be some vignetting even without microlenses, it would become much more managable.

[carstenw]

Medium format cameras generally don’t use microlenses. For example, of Hasselblad’s current models, only the H3DII-31 has microlenses; the H3DII-39 and H3DII-22 do without. In theory, this could cause problems with aliasing, but in practice, no such problems are observed.

 

Given the relatively large pixels in MF cameras, I can see why the effect wouldn't be visible, but as long as the pixels don't cover the entire area of the image, it is theoretically possible, according to sampling theory.

 

 

As to vignetting, microlenses are not the solution, but the problem. The vignetting problem that offset microlenses are designed to solve was created by using microlenses in the first place. While there would be some vignetting even without microlenses, it would become much more managable.

 

Well, microlenses are not the only problem: well depth is another, one which microlenses can help with. The offset microlenses on the M8 help to overcome this difficulty with the M lenses (most, but not all), and a B&W digital M might need the same technique. MF cameras probably would not, with their large sensor-to-lens gap.

[rivi1969]

I miss those days when people could talk about the expressive power of an image, about visual content, about what makes people feel while looking at them. I am sorry but now is nothing but engineers discussing circuits like if that really matters and affect the decisive moments cameras are able to capture. Is there a forum where people can actually discuss the artistic side of the medium? HCB please help!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[carstenw]

I think you weren't really around when the really good photographers were discussing things way back in the day. What do you think Ansel Adams and Minor White would have discussed, if not the technical details of this or that developer, the properties of various papers, reciprocity failure, and so on? There has always been and will always be both types of conversations. I think that expecting to find art discussions in the M8 forum can only be caused by a synapse blowout

[Riley]

when you say vignetting, ask what kind of vignetting

 

1/ pixel vignetting, caused by the physical depth of the photon wells

2/ mechanical vignetting, partially blocked by external objects such as thick or stacked filters, secondary lenses, and improper lens hoods

3/ optical vignetting, caused by restrictions due to lens element sizes

4/ fall-off vignetting, off angle where the light impinges on the film or sensor array. WA RF designs are particularly prone.

 

Most sensors use microlenses to increase their sensitivity. Such sensors normally lose 50% of their sensitivity when the light diverges just 15 degrees from perpendicular horizontally. To avoid noticeable vignetting, light should be within 12 degrees of perpendicular

 

Light through 35mm systems can be as much as 20 degrees off parallel on circa 50mm exit pupil designs. While film can tolerate these angles, sensors cannot. Current APSC and 4/3rds designs reflect how this can be combated, with APSC 1.52x and 1.62x slightly beyond the verge of control microlenses at 12-13 degrees offset light path and demonstrate vignetting commonly when wide open. 4/3rds at around 6 degrees on its larger 85mm (near telecentric) exit pupil, and where vignetting where it exists is less visible and the equipment is then more useful wide open.

 

a lens with an exit pupil 50mm from the film plane has the potential for severe vignetting on a 1.0x or 1.3x crop camera, and noticeable vignetting on 1.5x or 1.6x cameras. (1.7x and 2.0x cameras are essentially immune to such vignetting). Increasing the exit pupil to 80mm means that the 1.0x camera may have objectionable vignetting, but 1.3x to 2x cameras will have no vignetting at all.

 

It is the balance of these 'fixes' that have been engaged because of the limitations of digital sensors that needs to be considered. While microlenses bring with them issues when light angles get steep (and again this is only FF or close to FF designs) there are other ways of dealing with those issues incurred by the use of microlenses in the firstplace.