Guest malland Posted February 26, 2008 Share #21 Posted February 26, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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!I think Carsten is correct: this isn't the right forum or thread for such a discussion. A more constructive approach rather than just whining would be to start a thread on aesthetics or whatever you want to discuss, as in the following: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/29339-form-content-emotion-sean-reid-s.html I found particularly interesting the sketch and analysis by Steve Kessel on page 3 of the thread. The interesting question is whether there are enough people left on the LUF for this type of discussion, but you can find out if you start with an interesting post. —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Hi Guest malland, Take a look here Should Leica produce a Monochrome Digital Camera?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
zapp Posted February 26, 2008 Share #22 Posted February 26, 2008 Old story, but nobody will provide the sensor or is willing to invest in sensor development that only attracts the military (if they pay, they don't tell you), science (not enough money) or black and white photographers. I would buy a camera with black and white sensor again and know a bunch of people that would do the same thing. That makes 20 cameras, not an awful lot. You cannot use signal processing on a Bayer sensor to produce the output of a black and white sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivi1969 Posted February 26, 2008 Share #23 Posted February 26, 2008 I agree and thank you Mitch for the link, it has been up more than a year now but considering it is a timeless topic I will add my one cent there and leave the the engineers discuss circuits here. Cheers Ricardo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilihead Posted February 26, 2008 Share #24 Posted February 26, 2008 Sigma might - Voigtlander will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 26, 2008 Share #25 Posted February 26, 2008 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. The KAF-39000 in the H3DII-39 has 6.8 µm square pixels and the KAF-10500 in the M8 has pixels of the exact same size. I couldn’t find the fill factor in Kodak’s datasheets, but given that both are full-frame transfer CCDs, it should be similar, if not the same. With regard to sampling theory, both sensors should behave the same. 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. According to Kodak, the loss in quantum efficiency with the microlens-less KAF-39000 is about 25 to 35 percent at worst for an incident angle of plus or minus 40 degrees. With the KAF-10500 in the M8, the quantum efficiency drops by 80 to 100 percent. Despite all the efforts to combat vignetting by microlens shifting, the sensor without microlenses wins. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted February 26, 2008 Share #26 Posted February 26, 2008 I agree and thank you Mitch for the link, it has been up more than a year now but considering it is a timeless topic I will add my one cent there and leave the the engineers discuss circuits here...Not a bad idea, Ricardo, as that could kick the thread alive again. —Mitch/Bangkok Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted February 26, 2008 Share #27 Posted February 26, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Old story, but nobody will provide the sensor or is willing to invest in sensor development that only attracts the military (if they pay, they don't tell you), science (not enough money) or black and white photographers. I would buy a camera with black and white sensor again and know a bunch of people that would do the same thing. That makes 20 cameras, not an awful lot. You cannot use signal processing on a Bayer sensor to produce the output of a black and white sensor. If you look around the Kodak sensor product pages, you'll find monochrome versions of most of their sensors. Many sensors are made for industry, science and medical uses, so the technology is available. It may be more of a marketing limitation, where small limited markets are something to be avoided, especially if an alternative is already in place. It will take someone interested in the craft of photography, that can over-ride marketing, to take a chance and offer something like this. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cordell Posted February 26, 2008 Share #28 Posted February 26, 2008 Leica seems to be able to find some people eager to pony up for every scrap they toss on the pile, even if it means suspending rational sense and defending absurdly ridiculous arguments. So sure, why not five grand for an M8 with a monochrome sensor? It'll sell, and whoever buys it will have a litany of disparaging counters for anyone who points out that b&w conversion can be as simple as one-click in post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted February 26, 2008 Author Share #29 Posted February 26, 2008 I'm sorry to have dragged down your forum. My statement is that a monochrome sensor does black and white better than a color sensor. Monochrome sensors are still produced, no development cost there. I like mine, it does a much better job at producing monochrome images than the sister camera that used color. At least I tried to provide some actual images as examples. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 26, 2008 Share #30 Posted February 26, 2008 What would be the actual 'real world' benefits of a B&W M8? I have read the thread and OK it won't possibly need microlenses or whatever but I've also read many times that the M8 IQ is already better than any 35mm film, so how can a B&W camera be even better still? And would users still do tons of PP to try and replicate Tri X or whatever? :confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted February 26, 2008 Author Share #31 Posted February 26, 2008 I've looked at some monochrome conversions, and have done some with my color cameras. The "native" monochrome is more uniform. As to other photographers trying to "Photoshop" it to look like Tri-X, the output of my camera looks much more like Panatomic-X in Microdol. It's smooth. I do a minimum of photoshop on my images, and have used that software since version 3.0 came out in the 90s. On the various camera forums, I've seen more M8 images converted to Monochrome than I've seen posted in color. Would an avid user go the extra distance to give up the ability to shoot in color with their M8? I'm not sure. Would an M8 Monochrome camera give better black and white results than a converted color image- Yes, it would. How much better- you would need some side-by-side comparisons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
krabat Posted February 26, 2008 Share #32 Posted February 26, 2008 To be honest, I also feel attracted by the idea of a b/w sensor in a digital camera (although I don't have an M8 to judge about the real outcome ). On the other hand, please remember how angry several people have been and still are because they are "forced" to use an IR sensor with the M8. So, with a b/w sensor, the same story as with b/w films would start again that several colour filters would have to be used. Or isn't it a problem? Best regards, Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 26, 2008 Share #33 Posted February 26, 2008 Hot on the heels of the across the board price increases to cover the M8 debacle ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 26, 2008 Share #34 Posted February 26, 2008 What would be the actual 'real world' benefits of a B&W M8? More resolution (roughly equivalent to a 20 MP Bayer sensor if a monochrome variant of the M8’s 10 MP sensor would be used), less artifacts, and more sensitivity – about twice the sensitivity if microlenses are used, somewhat less if they aren’t. Compared to a Bayer sensor with the same effective resolution, a monochrome sensor would also offer an increased dynamic range. Of course, this is strictly for those shooting b&w almost exclusively. If you need both colour and b&w, you are better off with the M8 as it is (or in fact any camera with a Bayer sensor). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share #35 Posted February 27, 2008 My camera was special ordered from Kodak to do Infrared. Normally, the IR cut filter is integrated into the Sensor array. It is "basically" a built in Hot Mirror filter, at least performs the same function. When I want to use the camera for "just" visible, I use the Hot Mirror filter over the lens. A Monochrome Sensor with the IR Cut filter integrated into the sensor would perform quite well. The "magenta" cast of some dark fabrics would look like a dark grey. The Hot Mirror filter takes out about 99.5% of the Infrared, roughly 8 F-Stops. I converted a Nikon Coolpix into a color Infrared camera by removing the IR cut filter from the CCD array, and replacing with clear glass. I have some visible+infrared images that are quite interesting. Pictures of "Darth Vader", where portions of his black costume were jet-black and others were as light as an 18% grey card. I'll have to hunt for them. Just a little history: Bayer Filter is a Mosaic filter with a patented color pattern of the form: RGRGRGRGR... GBGBGBGBG... RGRGRGRGR... Twice as many Green elements, and lends itself to color interpolation. The DCS100 predated the Bayer pattern, and other sensors such as some of Sony's sensors use a different pattern. It is named after the Kodak engineer that originated it. Most color arrays give up the borders to the interpolation process. The usable images from the monochrome array of a DCS200 are 1536x1024 vs 1524x1012 for the color array. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted February 27, 2008 Share #36 Posted February 27, 2008 Should Leica produce a Monochrome Digital Camera? No, it's not a financial winner and Leica can't afford to make losses at the moment. How many people would really spend at least as much as a current M8 on a body which can't do colour, when the images from the M8 colour version can so easily be converted to mono? Yes there would be a small improvement in quality, but Leica would be 10 times better off just bringing out a 20 megapixel M9 with colour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
krabat Posted February 28, 2008 Share #37 Posted February 28, 2008 .... but Leica would be 10 times better off just bringing out a 20 megapixel M9 with colour. Yes, surely. Moreover, Leica engineers should seriously consider a firmware upgrade allowing storage of images in a real 16-bit depth. Regards, Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdommin Posted February 29, 2008 Share #38 Posted February 29, 2008 I would love a B&W-only Leica. As some on this thread have stated and others just don't seem to understand - having a dedicated B&W sensor is NOT THE SAME as converting a color photo in post-processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gennfiks Posted March 3, 2008 Share #39 Posted March 3, 2008 Just a quick question and thought: Do you think that having a Foveon-type filter, B&W conversion wpould be much more "natural" as opposed to a Bayer-type? Intuitivelly it seems logical, but in practice.... Gennady Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted March 3, 2008 Share #40 Posted March 3, 2008 foveon s a sensor configuration not a filter, in fact foveon doesnt carry an AA filter. You might also find that foveon sensors are limited to 1.7+ crop factors on film lens exit pupil designs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.