1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would you buy a camera that can only shoot in black & white?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jun 6, 2012.

  1. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    OK, so the best image of the moon is one which shows it approximately the same size as it's seen with the naked eye?

    There's information in a false colour image - however it's made - in this case it shows clearly that the formation of portions of the lunar surface which appear similar to the eye is from different material. Since it's not given to us to stroll around the surface with a geologist's traditional tool (hammer) and very few areas of the moon's surface have been sampled, we do the best we can. The camera is "only" a tool & in this case a monochrome camera works far better than a colour camera, or a camera loaded with ordinary colour emulsion, ever can. With the possible exception of infra-red Ektachrome film, which was deleted so long ago that the chances of any turning up in a usable condition are rather remote.

    Anyhow you can make the same argument against any image taken in infra-red light ... the eye can't see, so it must be "unnatural".

    Wow, I wasn't even trying for beauty.
     
  2. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    No - too much of what I do is colour.
    Hooray, an easy to answer survey!!
    :)

    ...although, strictly speaking, it's my computer software (not the camera's) that does a good enough mono conversion...
     
  3. Benchmark

    Benchmark Well-Known Member

    This poses something of a dilema for me.

    I like using B&W, and I don't find most colour conversions all that good, but then I wouldn't want to be limited to B&W when I go out.

    Given the cost of buying a dedicated digital B&W camera I think I would be more inclined to take my OMTi 4 with me, and a roll or two of of FP4, HP5, Pan F or whatever took my fancy, alongside a second body for colour photography - which is exactly what I would have done ten years ago. :)

    I must say, that is one of the things I really like about medium format: I can change film backs whenever I want.
     
  4. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    I'd be happy with a 6mp B&W sensor if it could offer clean ISO at 25,000, usable to something like 200k and a ceiling nearing 350k, in a body costing no more than £600.

    Doable please? :)
     
  5. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Doable.

    And I think it may - eventually - be the way ahead, for survival, for the camera companies. I have thought at times that I would quite like a stripped out D700, offering not much more than what I need it to do.

    As it stands, I think it is 1. possibly the most complete camera ever made (the 5D MkII/III ditto), and 2. it can do far more than I am ever likely to want it to do. And the same is true - more so? - of the top of the range Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras.

    So, something simpler, lighter (& cheaper?) but pro kit. After all, Leica were building custom cameras way back when and again, about eight to ten years ago and are doing so - yet again - with the M9 Mono. Even charging folk extra money to have the red dot disappear! :rolleyes::eek: Now, that's clever!!
     
  6. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Here we go again ... the native speed of a CCD / CMOS based sensor is around 100 when the pixel pitch is around 5 microns. If you want native 25000 ISO then the pixel pitch needs to increase by a factor of square root(25000/100) = (approximately) 16 so the pixel pitch needs to increase to ~ 80 microns. A 3000 x 2000 (6 MP) sensor array will therefore be 240mm x 160mm in size. At least.

    There is no way of increasing the native sensitivity much above this figure. The sensors are already detecting more than half the photons arriving; the only sensitivity gains that can be made are really marginal.

    You can underexpose the sensor, losing dynamic range and amplifying noise, that's how the high ISOs on existing cameras are obtained. It's all a con; it only works at all because of clever noise reduction algorithms, but they aren't perfect; there is always a loss of image quality, with loss of resolution and introduction of artifacts.
     
  7. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    In that case, no, i would not like a camera that can only shoot mono. :)
     
  8. Rasha

    Rasha Well-Known Member

    It might sound stupid, but why would I do that id I have a camera with a B&W mode, if I really want something special I'd go film...But other than that, I don't think I can afford it.
     
  9. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Can't & won't disagree with you and/or the maths but the camera makers - sensor makers in conjunction with the c-ms - are getting better at their 'conning' all the time. ;):)
     
  10. Digital Dave

    Digital Dave Well-Known Member

    Black and White still has it's place, but a camera that is mono-only, no thank you.

    A mono sensor will always be more sensitive, because it doesn't have a Bayer Matrix Filter.

    Dave
     
  11. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Complete and utter nonsense.
     
  12. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    It is indeed. And of course with film no one would choose a film because of how it looked or process the film in any way that could possibly affect the image.
     
  13. attack_donut

    attack_donut Well-Known Member

    I'd have one (can't afford, nor justify a Leica) in a heartbeat if I could.
    I believe Kodak made some dSLRs in mono-only many years ago. If only I could find one....

    As an aside, I picked up a near mint d70, with 10k on the shutter, for (current rate exchange here) 32 British Pounds.
    When I'm done with it for a marathon, I will save to have it converted to pure IR. I love IR work.
     

Share This Page