M9 with B&W sensor?

[sleepyhead]

Originally Posted by Keith

Anyone who would shell out $5000 + for a digital camera body with a 36 x 24mm sensor that only produces black and white needs their head examined IMO!

YMMV of course!

Yes, agreed!

[Archiver]

Originally Posted by 135format

I thought that pixels as we get them in our image files were a combination of 3 receptors. i.e. Green, Red and Blue receptors. My asumption was that turning them all into luminance receptors would effectively give you three times as many pixels. Obviously I'm wrong on that one.

You're thinking of the Foveon sensor, which has three layers, each devoted to red, blue or green.

My understanding is that normal CMOS and CCD's determine RGB values at each sensor site by way of the Bayer filter. Each pixel measures the red, blue and green levels at that point; there is no separate receptor for each colour.

[BobYIL]

IMHO, B&W is not the strength of digital... also to shoot digital B&W one should not need to be so picky about the camera as the tonalities, gradations and film simulations will depend on the software together with the mastery employed during PP rather than the camera used. Further lens-sensor deficiencies like CA or color-shift toward corners would not be issue with B&W, so the less spec'd lenses could perform satisfactorily.

I wonder if the B&W version of the M9 would sell half of what the M9 did so far no matter even if it would be priced at $5.000.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Archiver

You're thinking of the Foveon sensor, which has three layers, each devoted to red, blue or green.

My understanding is that normal CMOS and CCD's determine RGB values at each sensor site by way of the Bayer filter. Each pixel measures the red, blue and green levels at that point; there is no separate receptor for each colour.

Very nice presentation on the subject by Rob Hummel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98FZ8C6HneE

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Keith

Anyone who would shell out $5000 + for a digital camera body with a 36 x 24mm sensor that only produces black and white needs their head examined IMO!

May I ask why? I'm a color photographer, but I could not say what you just said as an absolute.

[jaapv]

The point is moot, imo. I would not be surprised if an B&W camera, if it appears at all, would be a limited edition 15000 $ + camera....

[Keith]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

May I ask why? I'm a color photographer, but I could not say what you just said as an absolute.

I never stated it as an absolute ... purely as my own opinon hence the IMO at the end of the sentence!

Followed up with a cautious YMMV

[jsrockit]

You're right Keith... didn't notice the IMO.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

You're right Keith... didn't notice the IMO.

I knew you were around and I wasn't about to take any unecessary risks!

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Keith

I knew you were around and I wasn't about to take any unecessary risks!

Oh man, now I feel bad! Just so you know, I'm with you on the B&W only camera... for my needs. However, for some, I can see this camera being very intriguing.

[Keith]

Actually jaapv makes a good point about it being released as a limited edition for a silly price!

It would get snapped up .... as the HCB special maybe?

[ramosa]

Interesting. I would never have interest in a limited edition with an inflated price tag. But that's just I. We just have such different wants ... of which, of course, none is better than another.

[taxi38]

A question.......... if every pixel can be used to create shades of grey,or intensity,surely a black and white sensor must give a much sharper and more accurate image than a black and white image from a colour sensor which would give an average reading to a clump of 3 or 4 pixels.Both images would have the same pixel count but the image from the black and white sensor woulld be MUCH finer,not just 30% or so(this I imagine is connected to the extra green pixels)but a great deal more detail and definition,at least double.

[Nomad Z]

I would have thought it would be more accurate, since there is no up-sampling due to the bayer reconstruction stuff.

[agianelo]

In this article (Copyright Pete Myers):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...dak-760m.shtml


He Says: "Without an anti aliasing filter and no Bayer color matrix, the resolution of a 6 mega pixel monochrome camera is astonishing. In monochrome, 6 mega pixels effectively does what it takes 12-24 mega pixels with a color matrix. "

I think he sure would buy one of these B/W cameras.

[JoeV]

I could imagine a B/W-only sensor with a higher bit sampling rate, say 24 bits or more, perhaps upwards of 28 to 32 bits, giving finer tonal gradations, especially in the highlight areas. Such a sensor would have to be designed as such from inception, not merely adapting a color sensor by removing the Bayer array.

I can also imagine such a sensor with much larger pixel sites, for improved low-light sensitivity.

I can also imagine the price would be extremely affordable, but I'm almost certain I'd be wrong on that count, too.

~Joe

[135format]

Originally Posted by jaapv

That is the Foveon story. it s a nice enough sensor, but marketing remains marketing.

Interesting because wikipedia is saying the exact opposite and that the bayer filter has to be de-mosaic'ed from 4 locations to arrive at a single pixel value whereas the foveon is layered so there is only one vertical location for each pixel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

edit:

having read some more it seems that bayer filter is nothing to do with it. It is what the software does with it that counts. So there would be zero increase in pixels by removing a bayer filter. And I don't see how there would be an increase with a foveon either.

[jaapv]

You are right. But one single pixel in the Foveon creates three values in RGB. Thus the marketing claimed a tripling of the resolution. However, geometrically that is nonsense, as the three pixel values are in the same location.

[135format]

I see said the blind man. I've learnt something.

[Mephiloco]

As far as I know there is only one B&W digital camera that takes M Mount lenses, and it has a tiny sensor.

[Shade]

Is it wierd that somehow I like my M8 results better than my M9? Forget about ISO and full frame, just plain result in sufficient light. I like the M8 better still, really. Am I nuts?

[taxi38]

Originally Posted by agianelo

In this article (Copyright Pete Myers):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...dak-760m.shtml


He Says: "Without an anti aliasing filter and no Bayer color matrix, the resolution of a 6 mega pixel monochrome camera is astonishing. In monochrome, 6 mega pixels effectively does what it takes 12-24 mega pixels with a color matrix. ".

Jaapv,youre obviously very knowledgable on these issues but I remain unsure .Are you saying this gentleman is wrong or at best overly enthusiastic and the differences between sensors in making a bw image are minimal?

[jaapv]

Let's say he does not quantify his statement. Obviously leaving a filter off will result in more sharpness, and that is what he is seeing. However, if he were to count hairs he would find the number/size of detail rendered to be no different from a normal 6Mp sensor. The edge contrast of those details will be a lot better.
Resolution is about the number and size of the detail, not the sharpness.
And note the AA filter, that makes a 30 % difference in resolution.

The Foveon is a nice idea and an excellent sensor, but it never really made the grade. A bit like Betamax video casettes, better than VHS, but it never caught on.

[Ezzie]

B+W only digital sensor? Back to a bucket load of colour filters, adapters, step-up/down rings then. Why sacrifice the possibility of deciding how to filter the shot, and much more acutely I might add, when converting a colour RAW file to B+W in post? The main advantage of shooting B+W as digital colour in my mind. Unless of course the sensor is indeed colour, but only gives B+W output with digital colour filters built into the camera SW. In which case, what's the point?

Stick to silvercoated emulsion.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Shade

Is it wierd that somehow I like my M8 results better than my M9? Forget about ISO and full frame, just plain result in sufficient light. I like the M8 better still, really. Am I nuts?

Yes, kind of.