vitaly66
slightly tilted
one wrong turn...
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K28mm/3.5
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K28mm/3.5
If I had more Pentax lenses- would probably pick up the Pentax Monochrome. My problem- too many Rangefinder lenses.survivors...
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K50mm/1.4
(I got those boots in 1979 ;>)
On several of the images, including the boots: I see a dark outline at the edge of an object when it transitions from light to dark. It's a narrow, sometimes "fuzzy" edge.
Is this a by-product of your processing, or is the dark edge in the original, unprocessed file?
------
I bought the M Monochrom when first announced, to go with my M9.
M9 converted to monochrome, 100% crop:
Dark artifact visible on the left edge, light edge to the right, of the converted image:
chimney_m9_converted by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrM Monochrom, 100% crop, same lens.
Clean edge:
chimney_monochrom by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
vitaly66
slightly tilted
If you already have a Monochrom, no need to get the Monochrome -- unless to finally get the 'e' to spell monochrome properly ;>
Not sure I'm seeing what you describe. Except to say the vintage SMC 50mm/1.4 lens at wider apertures does tend to produce very cool focus transitions that might be described as "fuzzy". For some subjects -- such as the boots and the eggs -- this can impart a 3d "wrap-around" effect that I really love!
Cost savings- not engraving that last "e"...
On the edges- I can see where the lens would produce it. "40+ years ago", I worked on Digital imagers. One of the first arrays had an effect like this, we corrected it in software.
vitaly66
slightly tilted
a northwest passage...
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K28mm/3.5
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K28mm/3.5
Freakscene
Obscure member
a northwest passage...
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K28mm/3.5
This looks great. You’ve commented here and elsewhere about manual focus, but how do you specifically find focusing a slow wide angle lens? The 28/3.5 on my Spotmatic was challenging.
vitaly66
slightly tilted
Using manual focus is a bit annoying to be honest. The optical finder is very bright and clear -- crystal clear -- and completely lacking any visual focusing aids such as split image or micro prism. In general the finder is bright and clear enough that I can usually determine focus by visual acuity alone. Though it's not a sure thing. With these lenses I'll usually hedge the bet by stopping down to f/8 - f/11.
There are also electronic focusing aids -- a visible green hexagon in the viewfinder and an audible beep. The beep is both helpful and irritating. All in all, I'll likely be looking into an accessory/aftermarket viewfinder screen at some point.
VIsible focus "peaking" is available in live view on the rear lcd screen. I never use it. For one thing, the implementation is one of the stupidest things about this camera. The "peaking" is indicated by edges shown in bright white, and the peaking color is not configurable. How smart is that when the image itself is in black and white, duh. Ricoh kinda cheaped out on this camera -- just putting in a b&w sensor and calling it good. With a little more attention to detail, the Monochrome could have been made much much better for the b&w photography enthusiast.
agentlossing
Well-known
To be honest, I have been watching and waiting for them to add in more features, or tweak existing features. This happened with the original K3 III, and with the K-1, and with the Ricoh GRIII models. But there hasn't really been any signs of support for the specific needs of the K3 III Monochrome, at least not yet. I haven't given up hope because I feel Ricoh/Pentax has been one of the best firmware update supporters in the past few years, but we've yet to see it with this model.
vitaly66
slightly tilted
charging my tesla...
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K28mm/3.5
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K28mm/3.5
vitaly66
slightly tilted
suppression of evidence...
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K24mm/2.8
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K24mm/2.8
vitaly66
slightly tilted
relics of the empire...
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, DA15mm/4
(ISO 20000)
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, DA15mm/4
(ISO 20000)
Last edited:
agentlossing
Well-known
Just a few thoughts, I have been testing a K-3 III M, evaluating whether I can bear to part with some of my current gear to finance the purchase. The answer to that is probably not: I'm too attached to my K-1 II and GRIIIx, and I can't quite swing the $2000 for another addition to what is just a very consuming hobby. But, anyway...
The K-3 III body is a really excellent camera. It doesn't matter whether it's a DSLR or not; it's a fantastic camera which has an extremely solid and rugged build, a terrific viewfinder, a deep and comfortable grip, and really great features including effective IBIS and better than usual live view (again, for a DSLR) and autofocus. Since it's a fairly expensive camera, I don't think it has gotten much attention outside of Pentax hardcore faithful, but it's a deserving camera. I'm happy that the Monochrome has given it more exposure, but I'd encourage people who are interested to consider the Bayer version and not think of it exclusively as a monochrome camera.
That said, the Monochrome is a really powerful concept. It's true that the exposure needs to be correct. Anything in the highlights is just gone: there's no falloff curve, because there's nothing kept in color channels. If it's white, it's gone, typically. However, highlight-weighted metering is helpful in protecting highlights, and the shadows are full of details to be coaxed out.
The post-processing experience is a little different. I have the final non-subscription Lightroom, v.6.14 or whatever it is, and it handles the DNGs without issue, however this software is a tad dated by 2024 standards. DXO does not support the monochrome RAW files (yet). I'd be interested to see what DeepPRIME NR would do with these files, though I think it would take a whole ground-up rework to function with monochrome files, since the noise patterns are different, and there is a complete lack of chroma noise.
In regards to the noise, it's there but it's usually very interesting and not unpleasant at all. I find myself mostly adjusting the tone curve and highlight/shadows/blacks sliders, and that's it. It makes post-processing so much faster, it's really kind of revolutionary. Much the same as what I do with my scans of B&W film, though obviously those have all the additional work of scanning.
I have found some rare cases where severely underexposed images with a lot of noise can show a weird grid pattern at some magnification levels, theorized to be a PDAF pattern off the sensor. Still unsure of how/why this shows up. But it can be avoided pretty easily by letting enough light on the sensor, I can only think of very rare occasions where it would actually become an issue, with massive differences between light and dark portions, and attempting to retain the information in both extremes. Something we wouldn't traditionally think of being able to capture in one file anyway. I'd just say, be careful not to underexpose by too much.
I can readily see why some photographers have said that the K-3 III Monochrome reignites their photography, and feels like a more fundamental, stripped-down experience. Much of that is in the post work. Digital photography is too dependent on sitting in front of a computer, and the fact that these DNGs can be turned into a high-quality final image with just a couple of sliders in many cases is awesome.
The in-camera developing options with JPEG aren't terrible but they're not as good as they could be. Ricoh does so well with the GR series that I'm sad they don't offer that same kind of strength in the Pentax DSLRs. Obviously as a monochrome camera the options are more limited, but this camera feels like Ricoh basically subtracted all of the color-specific JPEG options and just provided what was left over. There's the barest level of JPEG flexibility, with a standard, hard/hi-contrast and soft/low-contrast, with some parameters for each. I feel like a camera like this should have multiple tone curve options for different film feels, grain levels, all of that sort of thing. But, again, it's a pure experience, and you have to create all of that yourself, through exposure, filters, and tone curve.
The K-3 III body is a really excellent camera. It doesn't matter whether it's a DSLR or not; it's a fantastic camera which has an extremely solid and rugged build, a terrific viewfinder, a deep and comfortable grip, and really great features including effective IBIS and better than usual live view (again, for a DSLR) and autofocus. Since it's a fairly expensive camera, I don't think it has gotten much attention outside of Pentax hardcore faithful, but it's a deserving camera. I'm happy that the Monochrome has given it more exposure, but I'd encourage people who are interested to consider the Bayer version and not think of it exclusively as a monochrome camera.
That said, the Monochrome is a really powerful concept. It's true that the exposure needs to be correct. Anything in the highlights is just gone: there's no falloff curve, because there's nothing kept in color channels. If it's white, it's gone, typically. However, highlight-weighted metering is helpful in protecting highlights, and the shadows are full of details to be coaxed out.
The post-processing experience is a little different. I have the final non-subscription Lightroom, v.6.14 or whatever it is, and it handles the DNGs without issue, however this software is a tad dated by 2024 standards. DXO does not support the monochrome RAW files (yet). I'd be interested to see what DeepPRIME NR would do with these files, though I think it would take a whole ground-up rework to function with monochrome files, since the noise patterns are different, and there is a complete lack of chroma noise.
In regards to the noise, it's there but it's usually very interesting and not unpleasant at all. I find myself mostly adjusting the tone curve and highlight/shadows/blacks sliders, and that's it. It makes post-processing so much faster, it's really kind of revolutionary. Much the same as what I do with my scans of B&W film, though obviously those have all the additional work of scanning.
I have found some rare cases where severely underexposed images with a lot of noise can show a weird grid pattern at some magnification levels, theorized to be a PDAF pattern off the sensor. Still unsure of how/why this shows up. But it can be avoided pretty easily by letting enough light on the sensor, I can only think of very rare occasions where it would actually become an issue, with massive differences between light and dark portions, and attempting to retain the information in both extremes. Something we wouldn't traditionally think of being able to capture in one file anyway. I'd just say, be careful not to underexpose by too much.
I can readily see why some photographers have said that the K-3 III Monochrome reignites their photography, and feels like a more fundamental, stripped-down experience. Much of that is in the post work. Digital photography is too dependent on sitting in front of a computer, and the fact that these DNGs can be turned into a high-quality final image with just a couple of sliders in many cases is awesome.
The in-camera developing options with JPEG aren't terrible but they're not as good as they could be. Ricoh does so well with the GR series that I'm sad they don't offer that same kind of strength in the Pentax DSLRs. Obviously as a monochrome camera the options are more limited, but this camera feels like Ricoh basically subtracted all of the color-specific JPEG options and just provided what was left over. There's the barest level of JPEG flexibility, with a standard, hard/hi-contrast and soft/low-contrast, with some parameters for each. I feel like a camera like this should have multiple tone curve options for different film feels, grain levels, all of that sort of thing. But, again, it's a pure experience, and you have to create all of that yourself, through exposure, filters, and tone curve.
vitaly66
slightly tilted
@agentlossing - Agree 100% with your comments and observations. As you note, this camera has superb haptics, feels great in the hand, evokes a sense of rock-solid quality. For me it has the same appeal as a high-end film camera from the golden age of SLRs. Beautiful clear viewfinder, crisp yet well-damped shutter, and a sense of being fabricated to accompany world travels to far flung destinations, built to last a long long time.
Also as you note, the Monochrome has its share of annoyances and shortcomings. And we are not talking about the lack of a flappy lcd screen, either! Rather things in meaningful areas like manual focusing, metering, and image processing, things that should and could be more well-considered for the true b&w enthusiast.
Ricoh/Pentax may have missed the mark in properly identifying their target market for this camera. The Monochrome is decidedly *not* for the everyday bug-on-a-flower Pentaxian. Rather, the camera's greatest appeal will likely be found among the truly dedicated b&w photography enthusiast. Those who may travel hundreds of miles just for the tactile delight to see, up close and personal, a fine gelatin-silver or platinum-palladium print by a b&w master. Those who may be familiar with the traditional aesthetics and processes of film, and want to (finally!) extend those sensibilities with 21st century technologies. It is a highly capable device in many genres, from reportage to travel, from portraiture to still-life, from vernacular to avant-garde. I happen to think the Monochrome would be especially appealing to many RFFers here, whose skills and vision in b&w are highly correlated with the results this camera can deliver.
Also as you note, the Monochrome has its share of annoyances and shortcomings. And we are not talking about the lack of a flappy lcd screen, either! Rather things in meaningful areas like manual focusing, metering, and image processing, things that should and could be more well-considered for the true b&w enthusiast.
Ricoh/Pentax may have missed the mark in properly identifying their target market for this camera. The Monochrome is decidedly *not* for the everyday bug-on-a-flower Pentaxian. Rather, the camera's greatest appeal will likely be found among the truly dedicated b&w photography enthusiast. Those who may travel hundreds of miles just for the tactile delight to see, up close and personal, a fine gelatin-silver or platinum-palladium print by a b&w master. Those who may be familiar with the traditional aesthetics and processes of film, and want to (finally!) extend those sensibilities with 21st century technologies. It is a highly capable device in many genres, from reportage to travel, from portraiture to still-life, from vernacular to avant-garde. I happen to think the Monochrome would be especially appealing to many RFFers here, whose skills and vision in b&w are highly correlated with the results this camera can deliver.
vitaly66
slightly tilted
parsonage perspective...
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, M28mm/2.8
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, M28mm/2.8
vitaly66
slightly tilted
out of the orchard...
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K24mm/2.8
Pentax K-3iii Monochrome, K24mm/2.8
Shab
Well-known
Thank you very much for these posts... it's very interesting.
When I think in this interesting camera I think in the lenses also and it seems there aren't too good "new" lenses for it, for my taste.
I like using XF23mm 1.4 with my X-T3, or the VM 35mm 1.7 with my M5, or the Zuiko OM 35mm 2.0 in my OM-1n... but with the K-3 III Monochrome I don't have an equivalent lens. The DA21mm 3.2 isn't really an equivalent... so I would need to buy the FA 21mm 2.4... and it is an expensive lens. And the final price would be 3775€ (more or less).
This price it's the same price that costs a Leica Monochrom 246 type in excelent condition... and it is full frame and I would use my VM 35mm 1.7 with it.
What do you think about these different options? I have neves used a Monochrom(e) camera, but I only use B/W film with my film cameras, and I edit my X-T3 files in B/W in nearly 100% of my pictures. So, Monochrome is a way to discover...
Thank you for your thoughts.
When I think in this interesting camera I think in the lenses also and it seems there aren't too good "new" lenses for it, for my taste.
I like using XF23mm 1.4 with my X-T3, or the VM 35mm 1.7 with my M5, or the Zuiko OM 35mm 2.0 in my OM-1n... but with the K-3 III Monochrome I don't have an equivalent lens. The DA21mm 3.2 isn't really an equivalent... so I would need to buy the FA 21mm 2.4... and it is an expensive lens. And the final price would be 3775€ (more or less).
This price it's the same price that costs a Leica Monochrom 246 type in excelent condition... and it is full frame and I would use my VM 35mm 1.7 with it.
What do you think about these different options? I have neves used a Monochrom(e) camera, but I only use B/W film with my film cameras, and I edit my X-T3 files in B/W in nearly 100% of my pictures. So, Monochrome is a way to discover...
Thank you for your thoughts.
agentlossing
Well-known
You are hitting on probably my biggest problem with the camera. I'm not even complaining about Pentax specifically here; every system which has APS-C cameras that share a lens mount with full frame cameras frustrate me, because APS-C is a really awkward crop for full frame lenses. If you like telephoto, especially short telephoto, great. And I actually really like the 70-75mm range. But it's simply not versatile enough to stick a full frame 50mm on APS-C and call it a day. I did that for years with my Nikon D40 when I could only afford one Nikkor 50mm prime. It's a sometimes awesome combination but also often frustrating and impossible for close quarters with people.
Now, Pentax does have some really nice APS-C lenses, especially the DA Limited line. Most of them aren't as large maximum aperture as you mentioned, so if you really must have the shallow DoF all the time, then they're not great replacements. But if you stop down at all, then they're equivalent lenses, plus you can shoot crazy high ISO on the Monochrome no problem. The 15mm and 21mm DA Limited lenses, and then the cheap 35mm 2.4 would be a nice kit.
But back to my problem: I have a K-1 II, and I love it. But I'm forced to think of these two Pentaxes as two different formats. The only lens I own which is actually versatile on both is the FA 31mm Limited, which is a great lens, but it's expensive and according to my calculations, it would have to be sold in the short term to keep the Monochrome, which defeats the purpose. The other lenses I enjoy on the K-1, the 35-105mm 3.5, 35-70 3.5-4.5, couple of 50 1.7 versions and 50 1.4 are not useful everyday lenses for the APS-C. That's really frustrating. I owned the FA 35mm f2 for a while, but it's not really sharp enough optics to function as a good nifty fifty equivalent on the APS-C.
If I sacrificed other gear to keep the Monochrome I wouldn't be able to afford the 15mm and 21mm DA lenses just for the Monochrome. I could get the 35mm 2.4 but then I'm putting a very budget lens on a high-end body for a while.
Oh yeah, if you want to consider the Monochrome with a standard equivalent fast lens, the FA 31mm Limited is your best bet for really nice optics, the older SMC version isn't horrible.
vitaly66
slightly tilted
@Shab - I am the least qualified person to answer your questions about other options, especially when it comes to digital photography.
For one thing, my tastes and preferences in camera stuff leans toward the eccentric anyway. As an example, I have eleven(!) 2x3 Graflex cameras in the cupboard. Each one is fitted with its own different and unique lens -- Rodenstock, Zeiss, Schneider, Kodak Ektar, Voigtlander -- and on each one I've painstakingly calibrated its Kalart rangefinder to match. (The word "eccentric" here is a charitable way of saying "mental illness" ;>)
Other quirks include preferring Rolleiflex to Hasselblad, Tessar to Planar, boxers to briefs...
Anyway, as for the DA21mm/3.2 "Limited", I do think it's pretty fine. In fact this was the first digital-era lens I ever bought (used like new, a little over $100) just a few months ago, for an old Pentax K-01 camera -- their short-lived entry into the "mirrorless" market. The image quality from this lens/camera combo is what convinced me that Pentax gear was well worthwhile.
To give you a better idea, here's a large sampling of DA21mm/3.2 images from flickr user "pepperberryfarm", in a variety of contexts, most color, some b&w (desaturated), many wide open:
I might have stopped (hah!) with the 21mm, as it is so very good and versatile. Instead I added the 15mm, 35mm, and 70mm... I bought all of these used like new as well. As with the Monochrome camera itself when one came up, a very lucky occasion! So that is one way to save a substantial amount of money over the prices you have quoted.
This set of lenses is fun, wonderfully compact, discreet, easy to travel, and delightful in every way. My own "wish list" for another prime lens would be a 27mm/2.0 -- giving about a 40mm equivalent -- in a similarly compact "Limited" lens build quality. Such a prime does not exist from Pentax. (I did recently pick up a Zeiss 25mm/2.8 Distagon in Pentax mount, more to come on that in the future. For now I will just say it is the least compact and most indiscreet lens I own, yikes it is a hefty chunk!)
In the end, if one is happy with the results of an existing camera/lens system, such as your Fuji -- there isn't much of a case to change from what you already have. I happen to love the Monochrome -- for its sensor, the optical finder, build quality, and the fine Pentax lenses old and new. And yet, it's all just sort of a happy quirky fate that this is what I ended up with ;>
For one thing, my tastes and preferences in camera stuff leans toward the eccentric anyway. As an example, I have eleven(!) 2x3 Graflex cameras in the cupboard. Each one is fitted with its own different and unique lens -- Rodenstock, Zeiss, Schneider, Kodak Ektar, Voigtlander -- and on each one I've painstakingly calibrated its Kalart rangefinder to match. (The word "eccentric" here is a charitable way of saying "mental illness" ;>)
Other quirks include preferring Rolleiflex to Hasselblad, Tessar to Planar, boxers to briefs...
Anyway, as for the DA21mm/3.2 "Limited", I do think it's pretty fine. In fact this was the first digital-era lens I ever bought (used like new, a little over $100) just a few months ago, for an old Pentax K-01 camera -- their short-lived entry into the "mirrorless" market. The image quality from this lens/camera combo is what convinced me that Pentax gear was well worthwhile.
To give you a better idea, here's a large sampling of DA21mm/3.2 images from flickr user "pepperberryfarm", in a variety of contexts, most color, some b&w (desaturated), many wide open:
I might have stopped (hah!) with the 21mm, as it is so very good and versatile. Instead I added the 15mm, 35mm, and 70mm... I bought all of these used like new as well. As with the Monochrome camera itself when one came up, a very lucky occasion! So that is one way to save a substantial amount of money over the prices you have quoted.
This set of lenses is fun, wonderfully compact, discreet, easy to travel, and delightful in every way. My own "wish list" for another prime lens would be a 27mm/2.0 -- giving about a 40mm equivalent -- in a similarly compact "Limited" lens build quality. Such a prime does not exist from Pentax. (I did recently pick up a Zeiss 25mm/2.8 Distagon in Pentax mount, more to come on that in the future. For now I will just say it is the least compact and most indiscreet lens I own, yikes it is a hefty chunk!)
In the end, if one is happy with the results of an existing camera/lens system, such as your Fuji -- there isn't much of a case to change from what you already have. I happen to love the Monochrome -- for its sensor, the optical finder, build quality, and the fine Pentax lenses old and new. And yet, it's all just sort of a happy quirky fate that this is what I ended up with ;>
Last edited:
Freakscene
Obscure member
I think there are numerous advantages to a monochrome sensor camera for working in black-and-white. Your conversions are very good @Shab but I think there is tonality and texture you can get from a B&W sensor that isn't there for me in most converted files (note I say most). The usual rubbish in / rubbish out rule applies. Not every photo taken with a B&W sensor is a masterpiece because that's how it was made.
I am biased against the typ 246, I admit, but I wouldn’t buy one. The 12 bit files have banding problems when you lift the shadows and even in daylight, tonal separation and rendition of texture can be odd. When it works well the files can be as close to perfect as anything you’ll get from that format, but it was too unpredictable for me. Live view, one of the handiest things for using fast lenses on these cameras, is basically useless, and with shallow depth of field I lost a lot of photos because they weren't in focus. Monochrome digital files also lose a lot of tonality in out of focus areas that doesn't happen as much with film, so out of focus photos aren't just 'blurry' and thus 'ok', at least to me.
The Pentax has some colour background associated frustrations, the worst of which is the white (!!!???) highlighting of in-focus areas for focus peaking, but the camera is essentially the end of a long line of evolution of dSLRs but with a monochrom(e) sensor. The 21/3.2 is essentially equivalent to your 35mm, particularly to a fast 35mm used with film, because the Pentax Monochrome at ISO100,000 looks about the same as ISO400 film pushed to 800. Unless you rely on your fast 35 on film for shallow depth of field a lot, there is not much difference.
I bought the HD Pentax lenses in 15, 21, 35 and 70mm for my Pentax KiMono and they are all quite excellent, despite some having an mtf that would make a Leica user laugh. The photos look good to me. No-one noticed the KiMono photos among the Leica M10M and M11M photos in my Rajasthan series, and I know which is which mainly from the angles of view. I would encourage you to get autofocus lenses if you get a KiMono because some of the best features, highlight weighted metering especially, only works with autofocus lenses. This one https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/743117-USA/Pentax_21987_35mm_DA_L_F2_4.html is very cheap and perfectly ok, although the 35mm macro is better (that one is a really amazing lens).
Coming from film, one thing I can’t stress enough is that digital frees you to go crazy. Not sure how a photo will look or if it will or won't work? Press the button and find out . . . if you shoot the equivalent of a roll in 2 minutes, so what? It costs nothing. The camera, the lenses, everything, will pay for themselves, and if/when you wear it out, you can buy another one with the money you save from not buying film, chemicals or processing, and the time you would have spent developing and scanning.
The ZK Distagon is very nice - I have a C-Y version of the lens and it is great, although in the film days it was, for some reason, regarded as mediocre. I am interested to know if the electronic contact in the ZK lens means that the highlight weighted metering works? And the Distagon is big(ish) but it is much, much, MUCH more compact than the Sigma Art 35/1.4, which is basically the only really fast, modern normal lens for this camera (the 31/1.8 Limited is nice but f1.8 is not fast to me).
You can't have everything.
Marty
agentlossing
Well-known
Pentax-A series lenses, the first manual focus ones with electronic coupling to the camera, work with highlight-weighted metering.