[HN Gopher] Pentax K-3 III Monochrome: A DSLR Just for B&W Photo...
___________________________________________________________________
Pentax K-3 III Monochrome: A DSLR Just for B&W Photo Lovers
Author : Kaibeezy
Score : 62 points
Date : 2023-09-03 14:44 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (petapixel.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (petapixel.com)
| corinroyal wrote:
| I'm so excited that camera manufacturers would go out on a limb
| with a niche product like this. I typically shoot in black and
| white and am lusting after this. Like Fuji's X-100 series fixed
| lens cameras, it's an exciting time to escape the treadmill of
| incremental feature upgrades to produce a camera with a
| dramatically different photographer experience. Love live Pentax!
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| I've been shooting actual film lately (Ilford XP2 b/w and
| CineStill color) with my old Pentax ME recently back from a
| slow-mo refurb by the last semi-retired Pentax guy. Very happy
| to get one or two nice shots per roll. They are from an
| entirely different reality.
| wrboyce wrote:
| You should take CineStill's BwXX for a spin too, really nice
| film. I'm a big fan of 400D/800T too but shoot way more B&W
| than I do colour (primarily Kodak Tri-X 400).
|
| EDIT: Shameless plug! https://www.instagram.com/35milwill/
| illwrks wrote:
| Nice snaps. FYI - The website listed on your Instagram has
| some DNS issues ;)
| wrboyce wrote:
| Thanks! Hah, yeah; that's one of those sites I've always
| meant to deploy and never gotten around to!
| corinroyal wrote:
| Wow, that sounds really fun. A friend of mine got into medium
| format film photography and had a blast. Personally, while I
| love film, I don't know if I could go back to point and hope.
| I'm so used to instant feedback. How did you manage?
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| My kid is getting a uni degree in photography, which is
| obviously heavily digital. I wanted a way to connect
| without overlapping, so I went for creative anachrony. I am
| also hoping, without pushing, to spark an interest in great
| grandpa's Praktica, my dad's Nikkormat, or the little
| Konica rangefinder I had as a kid. We picked up a pinhole
| box kit where you expose straight to paper and develop
| that, no negative. Next week we're going to check out the
| new dark sky area near us. Etc. Just finding motivations
| and being nerds, really.
| corinroyal wrote:
| What a wonderful project to do together. The most amazing
| thing about my switch from DSLRs to mirrorless (Fuji) is
| the tools like focus peaking that make it easy to focus
| with manual lenses. I'm poor, so dropping 4-900 on a new
| Fuji lens isn't possible. But used camera sites like KEH
| have old lenses one can use with a cheap adapter.
|
| I got the Nikkor 10.5cm f4 sonar, a legendary old lens
| that shot the most famous photograph in the world. This
| was produced before Nikon was Nikon. It is fantastic
| still today. So while I used to shoot kit zooms, now I
| have a range of primes and am discovering what strengths
| the different lengths have. It's really extended my
| capability and fun. https://www.35mmc.com/24/03/2022/nikk
| or-t-10-5cm-f-4-review/
| maratc wrote:
| > the most famous photograph in the world
|
| Which one you're talking about?
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| I was wondering the same thing. One of these, right?
|
| _The Most Famous Photos in the World and the Cameras
| that Captured them!_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37385175
| corinroyal wrote:
| Yes, the Afghan girl by Steve McCurry.
| corinroyal wrote:
| I meant Steve McCurry's portrait of the Afghan girl:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl
| maratc wrote:
| The Afghan Girl was shot with Nikkor 105mm Ai-S f/2.5
| Gauss design, not with 10.5 Sonar. I know it only because
| by some chance I own one :)
| 10729287 wrote:
| "point and hope"
|
| Is the pun intended or autocorrect from "Point and shot" ?
| I find it very poetic
| corinroyal wrote:
| LOL. My favorite is "spray and pray" for a indiscriminate
| shooting style where you hold down the shutter and
| capture many photos in rapid succession and hope at least
| one comes out.
| rob74 wrote:
| I guess it's appropriate for film photography, where you
| point, shoot and then have to hope that the picture will
| turn out as intended, because you can't check it until
| you get the film developed...
| 10729287 wrote:
| I know it's appropriate, my question was if it was
| intended by OP ;)
| surfingdino wrote:
| I like opinionated camera manufacturers. We need more of them. We
| need more experimentation and more competition in the sensor
| space. During the film era we got about a dozen formats on 135
| and 120 films, because camera and film manufacturers weren't
| closely tied together. Today camera manufacturers cannot afford
| to experiment, because they need to pay Sony to make them a
| sensor. Going digital has increased the cost of camera
| manufacturing, because you cannot buy a sensor separately from
| the camera body like you used to be able with film cameras and
| film.
| edrxty wrote:
| I wonder if this has an infrared filter on the sensor. It would
| be incredibly cool to get a sensor that doesn't have any
| filtering out of the box and lets the user install whatever they
| need on the lens. That would greatly improve the low light
| performance and increase its usefulness for things like astro and
| night time photography.
| davotoula wrote:
| I thought b&w only was a gimmick until I saw the results.
| Removing various colour components from the camera allows for
| sharper and more light sensitive b&w photos... Also more b&w
| tones imo.
| askafriend wrote:
| One thing you lose is the ability to filter out specific colors
| in post-processing.
| wduquette wrote:
| I do mostly B&W these days, using an Olympus OM-1. The
| ability to mix the colors in post enables some real subtlety
| that it would be hard to reproduce using optical filters on a
| pure B&W camera. I was lusting after this camera (and the
| Leica monochromes, though they are _way_ too rich for my
| blood) before I got my OM-1; but I think I 'm happier with
| what I've got.
| ivanb wrote:
| Now that they got K-3 III Monochrome off their hands I hope they
| can dedicate effort to the camera that really matters - Ricoh GR
| IV.
| remlov wrote:
| The GR line is amazing. (I own a GRii and a GRiiix). I wait
| with bated breath on what a GR IV would entail.
| dale_glass wrote:
| I don't think Pentax is sticking to SLR because they've got some
| very special ideas. I think it's just pragmatic.
|
| Pentax K has a flange distance of 45 mm
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance). This puts
| Pentax in a tricky position. Making a mirrorless camera is nearly
| pointless if they want to keep their current lenses. And they're
| already a niche player with barely any adoption.
|
| Their options would be releasing a fat mirrorless camera,
| providing an adapter and creating a new lens mount, or adopting
| an existing lens mount. All of these kind of suck, and would risk
| losing market share. The easiest option seems to just keep going.
| sanitycheck wrote:
| They made a mirrorless K-mount camera, the K-01, 10-11 years
| ago. Got some moderately well-known designer to make a
| moderately trendy looking thing. It bombed.
|
| They also attempted a new mirrorless series ("Q") but I think
| it only got a little bit of traction even in Japan. Some bad
| decisions and wrong compromises there, though I did meet a
| woman who loved her pink one.
| dale_glass wrote:
| I remember the K-01, I didn't care for it. For me, a camera
| is a tool, not a fashion accessory. I couldn't care less that
| some famous guy designed it. Reviews said it was
| uncomfortable and for me that was that.
|
| The Q didn't interest me because of its small sensor.
| sanitycheck wrote:
| Agree 100%. All I'm saying is that they've dabbled with
| these things before, albeit without any real success.
|
| It is of course possible to make a fashion accessory that
| is also a tool, but then you have a Leica and I can't
| afford one!
| jacquesm wrote:
| Leica is pretty much done as a professional camera
| company, it's a luxury brand along the lines of Rolex.
| Professionals overwhelmingly use Nikon, Canon, Sony and
| Fuji in that order, Leica has dropped to sub 1% of the
| pro market. And compared to say Hasselblad they don't
| have any USPs that would make someone choose their brand
| other than the brand itself.
|
| Interestingly: amateurs use Leica 2x as much as
| professionals do, because the myth of the expensive
| camera making better pictures is still alive and well.
| dale_glass wrote:
| I remember back when Leica made their own monochrome
| digital camera (this idea isn't new, Leica did this in
| 2012).
|
| Half their ad was showing off how they make the _bag_ for
| the thing.
| ginnungagap wrote:
| > this idea isn't new, Leica did this in 2012
|
| They also released the M10 monochrom in 2020 and the M11
| just this year. As long as there's people willing to pay
| 7k for a (B&W) camera, leica is going to make them
| _ph_ wrote:
| And as the Pentax is the only competition, a lot of
| people are willing to pay for the Monochrom.
| jacquesm wrote:
| With prominently displayed branding, because after all,
| you don't want any thieves to think that they might have
| a $7K device that can easily be carted off sitting
| around.
|
| Oh, wait...
| jsmith99 wrote:
| You're meant to put a piece of black tape over it so you
| can LARP as a 1960s combat photojournalist.
| lispm wrote:
| Minor: The Leica M11 Monochrome does not have a red Leica
| logo.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Besides the branding not being that obvious, it should be
| quite difficult to sell a stolen Leica. At least for
| anything more than a pittance. It doesn't matter what it
| costs, what matters for a thief is what they can sell it
| for.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Exactly: thieves don't care what you paid for it they
| care what they can sell it for and they can sell stolen
| Leica's for enough money that this is a real problem when
| buying stuff second hand. More so because whoever you buy
| it from may not know that once upon a time it was stolen.
| This applies to all goods that are resold but for
| cameras, laptops and smartphones it is a big issue
| because those are stolen with great regularity (and it is
| why manufacturers build in protection against theft in
| some of their devices and will not replace certain parts
| unless you can prove you are the owner of the device).
|
| There is a whole industry in unbricking stolen laptops,
| for instance.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Laptops are common equipment, Leica cameras are not.
| Especially M series cameras are only used by enthusiasts.
| They know about stuff and won't pick up a shady one. The
| next service would put them into trouble anyway.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Why would it be difficult to sell a stolen Leica? Do they
| have some sort of cloud backed locating thing installed?
| _ph_ wrote:
| Leica cameras are very specialized equipment. The market
| is small. It is not that a random person would pick up a
| Leica camera. They are likely to be serviced at some
| point in time, as the range finder might need adjustment.
| A stolen serial number would be detected instantly.
| ninjin wrote:
| That last comment is a bit unfair, no? Yes, there are
| plenty of "fools" that throw money on Leica gear and
| wearing it as a fashion statement. However, Leicas are
| also darn _fun_ to shoot, even if they make zero sense
| for a professional that most likely want reliability and
| are optimising for nailing _each_ shot.
|
| I, however, very much enjoy the "flawed" process of using
| a rangefinder. It makes me obsess less about each shot
| for some reason. Likewise, it is great to be able to
| share lenses between my non-Leica film camera and digital
| Leica. Plus, having access to lenses going all the way
| back to the 30s is also _fun_ , despite them having
| serious flaws at times.
|
| So, yes, I agree that Leica is "done", but has that not
| in many ways been the case since the professionals got
| proper SLRs into their hands in the 60/70s? I for one
| appreciate the "fools" that throw money at Leica so that
| I can pick up a second hand digital one ever half a
| decade or so to keep my fun going.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| All of the above applied pretty much equally to Fujifilm
| at this point, though.
|
| I've heard it said that Fujifilm is the Leica of the
| 1970s, today. I think I agree with that.
|
| I love my X-Pro3. It's 100% a choice I made for the joy
| of photography, not practicality. I considered Leica. I
| could afford it, but they just didn't offer anything
| Fujifilm didn't outside the brand itself.
| lispm wrote:
| I usually hear that something like a Leica Q (Q, Q2, Q3)
| would be a step up in lens and sensor quality. They have
| full frame sensors, the newer models have a higher
| resolution and a matching lens. It's also a step up in
| price... Used Leica Q models are not out of reach price
| wise. M cameras often are.
|
| I bought a Q2 just be for the Covid pandemic and I kind
| of expected to be disappointed, given the ratio of
| capabilities and price. But I wasn't. I actually like the
| output of the camera.
| ninjin wrote:
| I mostly agree and love what Fujifilm is bringing to the
| table (the viewfinder in particular). Sadly their sensor
| size breaks backwards compatibility though with relation
| to old lenses. Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree
| and readily recommend Fujifilm cameras to others looking
| to get into photography and are not looking to use old
| lenses and swap lenses between film and digital gear.
| kwindla wrote:
| Do any of the fuji digital rangefinders have true
| mechanical focus rings, rather than "focus by wire"? I
| had an original X100 and thought it was a terrific
| camera. But I couldn't shoot with it the way I prefer
| because the manual focus mechanism was too slow and
| lacked the tactile+visual feedback of mechanical focus.
|
| I looked a couple of years ago at the then-current fuji
| offerings and thought they seemed great, again, but still
| weren't the right thing for me because none of them had
| physically coupled focus rings.
| miskin wrote:
| Yes, they do. I have Fujinon 16mm f/1.4 that allows you
| to switch to manual focus mode on lens and have depth of
| field for apertures and distance markers, so you can pre-
| focus in advance.
| kwindla wrote:
| Thanks. (And that sounds like a fun lens!)
| nullc wrote:
| They could make a mirrorless camera with a new short flange
| mount and include an adapter to the k-flange. They could
| include (or just sell) adapters to other popular mounts.
|
| For something like a oddball monochrome camera, being able to
| use it with assorted odds lenses would be a big selling point.
| signaru wrote:
| My favorite camera + lens in use is a micro 4/3 mirrorless body
| with a pentax lens adapted with an off brand "speed booster"
| making my lens an F/1 in principle. Filling in the gap where
| the mirror was supposed to be is an easy problem, making it fun
| to repurpose lenses designed for SLRs on mirrorless cameras.
| There are even passive spacer adapters that just fill the
| flange distance. It can be an option for Pentax to design these
| adapters with the autofocus also working.
| sbarre wrote:
| I also have a micro 4/3 camera with an adapter and a bunch of
| vintage (70s) Pentax lenses from the Super Takumar range (M42
| screw mount).
|
| You can get them off eBay for under 100$ each in almost-new
| condition, and they're super fun to play with..
| dingaling wrote:
| A 'fat' mirrorless camera wouldn't be too much of an issue;
| many people find skinny MILCs too small to hold, and Canon and
| Nikon both still produce full-grip MILCs at the top of their
| ranges.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Seriously my Olympus did not even begin to feel usable until
| I had bought and installed _both_ optional grips. And I have
| small hands.
| hef19898 wrote:
| My daughter has a pink, what else, Nikon 1. Fun little
| camera, and image quality is great. A pitty that the
| orginal Nikon 1 lenses, while being great optically, are
| flimsy mechanically. Well, G-series Nikkors work just fine
| with an adaptor, and she likes the thing with a cheap 18-55
| DX kit lense on it. Only downside, the camera is bigger.
|
| It also a great camera, with small sensor to give some
| additional reach over DX. And the sight of it with a 600
| Novoflex attached to it is something to behold! Or a 300 mm
| with a 2x TC. Tripod mandatory!
| ginko wrote:
| The neat thing about Pentax K mount is that it's backwards
| compatible with M42 screw-mount lenses which opens up an
| enormous ecosystem of classic lenses.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| They are as compatible with M42 as is my Sony A7 with an
| adapter.
| dale_glass wrote:
| Yeah, but that's a very niche interest.
|
| Those don't autofocus, don't manually focus well unless you
| mod the camera with a split prism, and are optically not
| great unless you're into it for the swirly bokeh or such
| niche things.
|
| Certainly there's niche appeal for it, but not mass appeal by
| any means.
| flipthefrog wrote:
| You're obviously thinking of Helios 44 and other Russian
| lenses, but there are also many outstanding m42 lenses,
| including Pentax Takumars.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I have a 50 1.4 takumar, it's optically not great by
| today's standards. You really do only buy it for the look
| and feel (or because it's so cheap)
| RobotToaster wrote:
| >don't manually focus well unless you mod the camera with a
| split prism
|
| You can use electronic focus confirmation with MF lenses.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Pentax is probably the most conservative Japanese camera maker
| still around (despite belonging to the Zeiss lineage along with
| Nikon and Yashica, not the Leitz line).
| jojobas wrote:
| That's not too far off Canon EF (44mm) and less than Nikon F/AF
| (46.5mm).
|
| Their mirrorless cameras don't use these though and require an
| adapter at best.
| 10729287 wrote:
| They also don't have the money to R&D for a mirrorless camera
| in such an already competitive landscape dominated by AF and
| video high level performance.
|
| They could only shine in a niche market, like SIGMA is trying
| with their fp and sd camera (Foveon triple layer sensor)... and
| DSLR seems to be a safer market for Pentax with huge heritage
| and strong fan base. The demand for Optical viewfinder in EVF
| times is there, and will still probably be way higher in the
| next years when they'll be the only one to care as Nikon and
| Canon already told they won't release any lens or body anymore
| with the DSLR technology.
| chongli wrote:
| Yeah. Personally, I would never buy a mirrorless camera for
| still photography (I hate EVFs). I have thought about getting
| back into photography and most likely I would pick up an old
| Leica M3. I'm quite happy that film and chemicals have
| recently become more available again, as film photography has
| begun to see a resurgence.
| gswdh wrote:
| If you want a good finder for still work, you're much
| better off with an SLR such as the Nikon F3. The M3 is a
| stunning camera but it's usability is very low for anything
| but some casual stuff. People like them for the prestige.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Anything Nikon from the F3 onwards, F4's seem to be a tad
| cheaper, is a good choice. Great cameras, hell the F4 was
| revolutionary at its time, and they work with all F-mount
| lenses. As do all Nikon DSLRs, and those lenses,
| especially some manual focus ones, are quite cheap
| despite being optically marvelous.
|
| Same goes for Canon, but there lens compatability for
| older models is more limited. Added added benefit: The F4
| works with G-versionen lenses, if memory works well, and
| those work great with the z-mount lenses using the
| adaptor. Additional added benefit: Fujifilm cameras work
| great with f-mount and an adapter as well.
|
| Invest in lenses, not cameras.
| 10729287 wrote:
| Film and chemicals more available again ? They've never
| been hard to get, at least here in France. They are just
| WAY more expensive now as they are popular amongst younger
| photographers who don't mind over paying common vintage
| cameras and 30euros for 36 pictures to be
| shot/developped/scanned.
| 4ad wrote:
| The existing Pentax lenses are just rebadged Tamron lenses.
| Tamron and Sigma make a full suite of mirrorless lenses. Of
| course, they could also use the L-mount.
| neogodless wrote:
| I tried researching this claim and found forums[0] discussing
| that in some cases Pentax has sold Tamron designed lenses but
| it sounds like it's far from _all_ Pentax K-Mount lenses.
|
| Also worth reading this article and the comments[1]. Sounds
| like all * lenses are in-house Ricoh designs, and just a few
| select lenses have been partnerships with Tamron.
|
| Do you have sources?
|
| [0] https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-
| discu...
|
| [1] https://fstoppers.com/originals/comments-suggest-newly-
| annou...
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Only a few are Tamron designs. Most Pentax branded lenses,
| including the most iconic, are exclusive designs: the FA
| Limited, the DA Limited, the DFA 100mm Macro, the * star
| lenses.
| dale_glass wrote:
| What I mean is that if Pentax changes mounts, they run the
| risk of upsetting their current very hardcore user base that
| now owns a bunch of lenses nobody else will want that much.
|
| If they adopt an existing mount, they risk becoming less
| distinctive. They become an alternative body in some pre-
| existing lens ecosystem.
|
| And since the flange distance is so large, a K mirrorless
| will be rather fat and compare unfavorably to the existing
| mirrorless market. It'll also suffer from all the downsides
| of a long flange distance, like the difficulty of making good
| wide angle lenses.
|
| However you slice it, they're in a tricky position.
| andjd wrote:
| I agree that owning the DSLR niche is a good strategy for
| Pentax. Ricoh hasn't given them the budget to make digital
| autofocus systems that are competitive with the other big
| brands, and it's likely hard to justify doing so with their
| market share.
|
| There's an interesting world where Ricoh sells Pentax to
| Samsung or Apple or Google. Taking cutting edge computational
| photography from smartphones and applying it to a full-size
| camera with the sensors and optics to match could be really
| compelling. Pentax has good brand value and the optical
| expertise to make this credible to photographers, and there'd
| be growth potential in just taking market share from other
| players.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Maybe there is a market for smartphone filters in full blown
| DSLRs. Maybe not. I for sure want my DSLRs to give me a clean
| RAW file if I want it. And my phone, too. Which my Pixel
| does.
| neogodless wrote:
| Headline caught my eye as a happy K-3 II photographer. The
| physical shape, optical viewfinder, and physical knobs are all a
| joy to me.
|
| Of course, touch screen, the advantage of digital viewfinders,
| and especially the autofocus of mirrorless would all bring their
| own joy. I worry about the change in grip size and all those
| other adjustments, not to mention having to invest in a whole new
| lens ecosystem, so for now, I'm stuck with what I've got.
|
| I find it crazy that a B&W camera at that price can be
| profitable, but it's neat to see.
| marstall wrote:
| wake me when digital can do this
| https://news.artnet.com/market/diane-arbus-birthday-890000
| Finnucane wrote:
| To be fair, no camera is going to turn you into Diane Arbus.
| grouchomarx wrote:
| There is a starting point though and it's a 4x5 view camera
| and nice optic
| _ph_ wrote:
| What exactly are you missing in digital cameras which prevents
| you taking pictures like that?
| marstall wrote:
| I struggle to define it. Emotion? The feeling of another
| world, different from the one I inhabit? Maybe Diane Arbus
| could make digital look like that idk.
| illwrks wrote:
| So I was going to write a quick paragraph reply but I
| bothered to do a bit of research... :/
|
| From Google: "Diane Arbus is known for her unrelenting
| direct photographs of people who are considered social
| deviates. She also portrayed "normal" people in a manner
| that exposed the cracks in their public masks. Diane Arbus
| is best known for her stark, documentary style of
| photography."
|
| And from the article: "Arbus captures a boy on the cusp of
| adolescence yet still playing with toys--but the object is
| a plastic grenade, an object of war," said Hughes. "There's
| something troubling about him playing solider--the ongoing
| war efforts were not lost on a little kid in Central Park."
|
| From PetaPixel: "I want to photograph what is evil," Arbus
| told Model, who noted that "[Arbus] was determined to
| reveal what others had been taught to turn their backs on."
| The scheme typical for her photography is a frontal
| portrait in square format. She was one of the pioneers of
| daylight flash use, which she used to isolate her subjects.
| What she first liked about it was how it alters light and
| reveals things you don't normally see. She wanted to have
| stillness in her photograph, and that is why she always
| posed her subjects either on the street or in their homes.
| Arbus made the subjects look directly to the camera to
| "freeze" the picture. However, as we can see in many of her
| picture the effect was quite the opposite. Many of her
| pictures look spontaneous.
|
| So, I guess to sum it all up in this photo... the context,
| the expression, the rigid pose, the fallen shoulder strap,
| the grenade... the questions you might have about who the
| child is, what's with the expression, where are his
| parents, is the grenade real?
|
| 90% of that is from the photographer and their interaction
| with the subject, and only a little of it is from the
| camera, the tool to capture that moment. It reminds me of
| the saying "a bad workman blames his/her tools", which is
| also kind of the inverse of "do your best with what you've
| got".
|
| If you more like the above, have a search for "Roger
| Ballen", he takes it to another extreme...
| marstall wrote:
| the subject and composition is without parallel, for
| sure.
|
| but the medium itself, film photography, does matter.
| there's a difference, like oils vs. water colors.
|
| the palette she has access to with film is just
| different. and to me there is emotion and unique artistry
| that exists just within that part of it.
|
| but like I said, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
| it's just the images in that blog post were so flat, I
| didn't see much there to persuade me this camera is
| capable of creating magic.
| illwrks wrote:
| That's a fair point, lenses, film, chemicals etc do add a
| level of style, and I guess it's a bit more tactile than
| digital if you're developing them yourself with chemicals
| rather than in Lightroom. No batteries to worry about
| either (for the most part)!
| gonzo41 wrote:
| If you're going to go this far, doesn't it just make sense to get
| a K-1000 and do film. It's a lot more fun IMO.
| macintux wrote:
| I love shooting film, but I also have 30-40 undeveloped rolls,
| and scanning is another big headache. Film adds a huge overhead
| to your workflow, and I can't blame people who don't want to
| deal with it.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The overhead is the point of shooting on film these days.
| Each shot is costly and time-consuming, so you think about
| what you are doing and the shots that make it to a print are
| your well-considered best ones. Scanning doesn't even makes
| sense in this mindset.
|
| When I used to be into photography I shot B&W film and did
| all my own processing and prints. Never scanned anything (of
| course, scanners didn't exist in those days, at least not in
| the consumer market).
|
| I started with a K-1000 also, there's something wonderful
| about its simplicity. Even though the viewfinder is dim and
| the action is slow by today's standards, you are in total
| control of aperture, focus, and shutter speed.
|
| I moved up to a slightly more automated Ricoh body that
| accepted all my Pentax lenses, but started lacking the time
| to spend on this hobby and eventually just stopped. The
| camera and lenses still work some 30+ years later, but are
| sitting on a shelf.
|
| I never got into digital photography. I found it entirely
| unrewarding. I have maybe a dozen photos on my phone and they
| are just used as sort of visual notes of things I need for a
| short while.
| bux93 wrote:
| A Foveon sensor would've been nice, though.
| shrubble wrote:
| I have a few Foveon sensor cameras and the DP1 and DP3
| (equivalent of 28mm and 75mm focal lengths) fixed-lens cameras
| are beautiful to use, in the right lighting. They don't have
| the ISO range needed however, it is best to keep them at ISO
| 100; though for B&W you can go to I think 800 or 1600 and not
| have many quality issues. The Sigma provided software that
| allows for a great deal of color manipulation also has a
| convert to monochrome mode which is incredibly flexible.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Nice to see, when you delete the Bayer filter you not only get
| more resolution (factor of 2 in both directions) but you also get
| an extra stop of exposure.
|
| It's always been tricky to bring to market. Deleting the Bayer
| filter saves money, it doesn't cost money but the person who
| wants this is going to care about quality and since it is a niche
| product that points to it being expensive.
|
| Practically most of us will want to shoot color snaps and vendor
| lock-in is a thing. I have some lust for the top of the link
| Nikon bodies but I have an investment in Sony lenses so if I get
| a new mirrorless body it is very likely to be a Sony.
| munificent wrote:
| As someone who takes a decent amount of monochrome photos, I
| don't think the extra resolution and brightness is worth it.
|
| The advantage of taking color photos and converting them to
| black and white in post is that you have full control over the
| resulting brightness of different colors during the monochrome
| conversion.
|
| For example, in the photo of the deer here, you could make the
| deer pop more by turning down greens and turning red up.
|
| Starting from a color photo just gives you so much more control
| over the relative values of different parts of the image. And
| with monochrome, obviously, value is everything.
| _ph_ wrote:
| The resolution difference isn't a factor of 2 in both
| dimensions, comparisons of the M Monochrom and the
| corresponding color model rather hint to the factor of 2 in the
| total pixel count which is expected from the mechanics of the
| color interpolation process. But still it is a noticeable
| resolution gain. And indeed, you also get at least a stop of
| exposure.
| myself248 wrote:
| Prior to this Pentax announcement, the only monochrome camera
| I've seen aimed even slightly consumer-oriented was the
| Krontech Chronos high-speed camera, which is only consumer-
| oriented if you really squint a bit and assume your consumer
| has some very niche needs.
|
| But one thing they do which I love, is they offer exactly the
| same camera with either a color or a monochrome sensor. I don't
| think it's quite user-swappable, but every other piece of the
| device is completely identical.
| Arainach wrote:
| What's your definition of "consumer"? The Leica Q2 Mono is
| firmly aimed at consumers. It's not cheap and not a
| disposable consumer, but it's not aimed at anyone making a
| living from photography.
| myself248 wrote:
| Oh thank you, I wasn't aware of those!
| ffhhttt wrote:
| I would also classify M10 Monochrom as consumer even if its
| certainly a luxury product.
| xattt wrote:
| > ... when you delete the Bayer filter you not only get more
| resolution (factor of 2 in both directions) ...
|
| Does the larger resolution mean out to a larger dimensions of
| an image file, or is it the term resolution being used in the
| context of "resolving" detail in an image?
| grishka wrote:
| The latter. Color pictures still have the pixel dimensions
| equal to those of the sensor, but each pixel has 2 of its
| channels interpolated from neighboring pixels. That's why
| "100% crops" of color digital photos always look kinda
| blurry.
| myself248 wrote:
| You can learn more about this by looking up "debayering" or
| "demosaicing", the process by which 4 pixels with color
| filters are combined into 1 pixel of color information. But
| it still has 4 pixels worth of spatial information. Sorta. If
| you're willing to make some assumptions.
|
| It's a messy process
|
| That's why shooting with raw files is so popular; these grab
| the data from the sensor before the debayering, since some
| post-processing operations work better if they're earlier in
| the processing pipeline.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Assuming both sensors have the same pixel count, the
| resulting images also have the same pixel count but the image
| taken with the monochrome sensor would resolve finer details
| which get lost when doing the color interpolation with the
| color sensor. This can be nicely seen with the Leicas, as
| they usually sell a Monochrom with the same pixel count as
| the color version.
| fileeditview wrote:
| I once owned a Pentax K-5. I sold it at some point just because I
| didn't want to carry around so much weight and switched to a
| smaller mirrorless camera. However with a heavy heart. The
| usability and build quality were stellar. Especially considering
| the price. Pentax creates some really beautiful cameras.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I still have my K-5...that I don't use because photos get some
| small marks from I believe fungus in my lens...and everytime I
| look at the price of new lenses I just sigh at the price and
| close the browser tab.
| sanitycheck wrote:
| Get yourself to Ebay! A Pentax-A 50mm F1.4 is a great
| portrait lens on a K-5, probably $100. If you need AF you're
| looking at twice the price or more, but you could get
| something slower.
|
| For a zoom something modern is a better idea, but old primes
| are still pretty great.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I think I still would have my K-3 if the autofocus would have
| been better. My Sony A7iv is just miles ahead. And the K-1
| doesn't have better focus either. It's pretty sad that a
| company that was building such great cameras in timers of
| features, ergonomics and robustness is slowly dying.
| epgui wrote:
| Even if you knew you only wanted to produce black and white
| images, a product like this introduces non-obvious tradeoffs. A
| colour sensor captures more information, and you can use a near
| infinite number of different functions to map to greyscale.
| Typically you don't want to merely pick the BW filter, you want
| to be able to do manipulations to different wavelengths
| independently.
| jeffbee wrote:
| You can also use a scheme like the Olympus super-resolution
| mode where the body drives the sensor using the stabilization
| voice coil. This totally eliminates chroma boundary artifacts
| caused by the Bayer filter, and reducing one of these 64MP raw
| files to B&W looks perfect. The technique is borrowed from
| Olympus' microscope business (the one that actually kept them
| in business all these years). I believe other bodies are
| offering this feature now. Of course there are tradeoffs. The
| technique is only good for still subjects and the camera must
| be mounted, because the stabilization does not operate in this
| mode.
| Hooray_Darakian wrote:
| Not really. A color sensor has a filter in front of it (usually
| a bayer filter) which lets each pixel capture one of the R, G,
| or B colors. The final image is
| [demosaiced](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing) and has
| a drop in sharpness as a result.
|
| Pentax seems to be omitting the color filter on the sensor
| rather than just squashing the read out to greyscale so this
| sensor should be sharper than a similar color sensor.
| NegativeK wrote:
| I don't think that's a disagreement with their point.
|
| Most people aren't limited by sharpness in sensor with a
| color filter, so the loss of the choice of mapping to
| greyscale is more limiting. That's the tradeoff GP comment is
| referencing.
| Hooray_Darakian wrote:
| > A colour sensor captures more information
|
| Was the part I was keying in on. A filter will reject more
| light and in a sense captures less information. I 100%
| agree that most people are not limited in sharpness, but I
| wanted to share why someone might care about a sensor like
| this
| RistrettoMike wrote:
| Title needs a "May, 2023"
| nottorp wrote:
| Hmm I see some complaints about the screen in spite of the camera
| having a viewfinder.
|
| I'm no photography fiend, but I do have an entry level DSLR and I
| find the screen completely useless. Maybe useful at night but as
| soon as there is a bit of light it's good for nothing.
|
| How can you actually use that screen? Buy a hood for it so it's
| in the shade when you're outdoors at noon?
| Semaphor wrote:
| The reviewer has issues using a full-color viewfinder for B/W
| photography.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Then he should have known a Wratten 90 viewing filter is used
| for previewing how a scene looks in black and white.
| aeturnum wrote:
| It depends on what you're using the screen for - but in general
| they're used for changing settings, reviewing framing and
| exposure, etc. I think they can also be useful for previewing
| long exposure settings. Even on very expensive cameras you're
| going to struggle to use them to do detailed assessment of
| photos.
|
| That said you can absolutely buy hoods for them - though they
| are generally aimed at people using them for video.
| sanitycheck wrote:
| I'm a Pentax user, I really appreciate their dedication to
| backward-compatibility - they've stuck with the K-mount since
| 1975 and nearly all* lenses ever made work pretty well** on every
| subsequent camera.
|
| The strong impression I get is that that photographers and
| engineers are the ones making important decisions, leading to
| outcomes like sensor-shift stabilisation (why put that in every
| single lens?!) and a proliferation of physical controls (try
| using a touch screen with gloves, or freezing fingers).
|
| [* The Ricoh pin, ** KA lens aperture contacts on digital bodies]
| jiggawatts wrote:
| > why put that in every single lens
|
| There are valid engineering reasons for this.
|
| Sensor shift is _hard_ , especially for full-frame cameras. The
| sensor has to be moved very fast, which means it has to be
| light, which means it can't have a heat sink attached, which
| means it can easily overheat.
|
| For telephoto lenses, the shift required in the sensor would be
| huge, up to a cm or so, whereas a tiny shift in a small lens
| can slew the image by more than that.
| sanitycheck wrote:
| Well... For a very long lens that's true - but then just buy
| a long lens with OS and turn off the sensor shift. Best of
| both worlds, all your other lenses can be smaller/lighter and
| still benefit from an extra stop or two of hand-held
| stability. I've never acquired a very long lens because I
| know in my heart that I'll never want to carry it around. I
| have, OTOH, appreciated the extra stabilisation on M lenses
| from the 80s!
|
| Really good point about heat, and one I didn't even consider
| because I don't care about video even slightly! I guess
| Pentax users are a small self-selecting market.
| cjbprime wrote:
| I can't help but imagine the version of this review that compares
| the shots the reviewer took to _other shots they took at the same
| scene_ on an similar size of sensor on a color Pentax camera, and
| then clicked "convert to monochrome" in their favorite image
| editor.
|
| (Before anyone thinks that maybe the experience of carrying the
| monochrome camera is different -- the reviewer points out that
| the Live View back screen does not articulate, and the optical
| viewfinder shows color in the way to would expect an optical
| viewfinder to.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-05 23:02 UTC)