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.
> … 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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/nikkor-t-10-5cm-f-4-review/
Wow! Good catch. I've heard that lens is fantastic for separating the subject from the background and flattening the view--turning a person into a poster. And they say it has velvety, lush out-of-focus areas. How are you liking it?
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...
Sorry, yes it's from the old marketing category "point and shoot" cameras. I love all the snarky photography lingo. "Chimping" is a good one. It's rather the opposite of point and hope where digital photographers stop between shots to stare at the LCD and see how it came out. I'm not sure, but I think the term comes from the way these photographers look from a distance, crouched over the tripod, hands shading the screen.
I thought “chimping” was when the subject/s swarm the photographer to see the photos just taken, chanting “show me show me show me”. Especially kids, and more so back when digital was new and shockingly fun.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That loses the flange focal distance advantage. SLRs are great for making professional photographs but they are quite bulky. Leica M rangefinders are nice and compact with some very small, yet fast, lenses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think that's as likely as you think. There are hundreds if not thousands for sale on eBay right now, and dozens on each of the NY, LA, and SF craigslists.
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.
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.
Your random thief is just going to grab the bag based on the brand and run off, they won't know or care if it is an 'M' series or not, just like your average Rolex thief isn't going to care beyond the basics of 'expensive brand'. That's all.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We had a couple. Irregardless of their design, they were great cameras. They still work. It's amazing when you can put on your 40 year old telephoto lens, and everything just works. (Manually of course.)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Sure. But isn't "computational photography" also all the "smarts" around taking the picture?
Like subject detection for focus tracking. Or trying to "understand" the scene and figure that since the subject moves, it's better to up the ISO and the shutter speed because the stabilizer won't help you. Or figure that some 300-year-old building won't start moving just as you take the picture, so it can do the reverse and take advantage of the stabilizer.
Auto-exposure exists since the 90 in SLRs, auto-ISO since the first DSLRs. The result is still a normal photo, either on undeveloped film or, if you want so, a RAW file.
Kind of the same goes for Auto-Focus with subject and face recognition and such. Still, the result is, ideally, well exposed and focused picture.
Computational photography is everything the camera does between the RAW image data (which is itself already processed sensor data) and the JPEG it creates. Thisbis as well as old as the first DSLRs, and such far from all the post-processing e.g. smart phones do. And the latter so, well, I am not sure how much it has to do with photography when information coming from sources other than the RAW data is used. Or when a ton of filters, auto-pseudo-HDR and focus stacking is automatically applied.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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)!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
128 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 190 ms ] threadIt’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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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/nikkor-t-10-5cm-f-4-review/
Which one you're talking about?
The Most Famous Photos in the World and the Cameras that Captured them!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37385175
Is the pun intended or autocorrect from "Point and shot" ? I find it very poetic
EDIT: Shameless plug! https://www.instagram.com/35milwill/
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
The Q didn't interest me because of its small sensor.
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!
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.
Half their ad was showing off how they make the bag for the thing.
Oh, wait...
There is a whole industry in unbricking stolen laptops, for instance.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can use electronic focus confirmation with MF lenses.
For something like a oddball monochrome camera, being able to use it with assorted odds lenses would be a big selling point.
Their mirrorless cameras don't use these though and require an adapter at best.
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!
You can get them off eBay for under 100$ each in almost-new condition, and they're super fun to play with..
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.
Like subject detection for focus tracking. Or trying to "understand" the scene and figure that since the subject moves, it's better to up the ISO and the shutter speed because the stabilizer won't help you. Or figure that some 300-year-old building won't start moving just as you take the picture, so it can do the reverse and take advantage of the stabilizer.
Kind of the same goes for Auto-Focus with subject and face recognition and such. Still, the result is, ideally, well exposed and focused picture.
Computational photography is everything the camera does between the RAW image data (which is itself already processed sensor data) and the JPEG it creates. Thisbis as well as old as the first DSLRs, and such far from all the post-processing e.g. smart phones do. And the latter so, well, I am not sure how much it has to do with photography when information coming from sources other than the RAW data is used. Or when a ton of filters, auto-pseudo-HDR and focus stacking is automatically applied.
Canon offers adapters for their mirrorless cameras, both EF-M and RF. https://www.canon.ca/en/products/Lenses/Mount-Adapters
Nikon has the f to z adapter: https://en.nikon.ca/nikon-products/product/lens-mount-adapte...
Sony has an A to E adapter https://electronics.sony.com/imaging/imaging-accessories/ima...
For a zoom something modern is a better idea, but old primes are still pretty great.
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?
That said you can absolutely buy hoods for them - though they are generally aimed at people using them for video.
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]
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.
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.
(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.)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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