Would yo buy a B&W only 16 BIT M9 ?

[percepts]

You are assuming that panchromatic film has a response to intensity only and not wavelength intensity. I'm saying it responds to wavelength intensity. The emulsions are very complex and there are modifiers in the way of sensitizing dyes in the emulsion.
Maybe my understanding is incorrect but I don't think so.
Either way, which film is this theoretical B+W digital camera going to replicate and who gets to choose? If you're an HP5 user will want it to look like HP5 but if if you are a Plus-X user you will want it to look like that. But you will still have to post process it to replicate your printing style.

 

[percepts]

and how is it going to handle my use of of Ortho film?

 

[percepts]

and how is it going to handle my use of IR film

 

[alecgold]

Different - yes - better - no. The same for digital. I wish people would stop comparing the incomparable...

hehehe, perhaps you have a point. But you can compare apples and pears in Holland, (or apple's and oranges elsewhere) there is just not much valid to conclude about it

But the point about 100% crops and pixel-freaking that some do still stands. It's not just about a technical perfect picture, it must have a soul, it must have a story, show something, convince me, move me. Otherwise it will be just on of those 3000 holiday pictures that friends of me made during their two weeks travel in South-Africa. That's a waist of my time and their holiday.

Anyway, we're drifting away from the point in this thread.
I think a BW only 16 bit M9 could be made, it might have better pictures than my M8, but to answer the question: I wouldn't buy it for the world. I guess it would be very expensive, (IIRC the M9 is 14 bit at front, but it only puts out 8bit DNG files, so you need a whole new architecture, processor/hardware, algorithms that process the information from the sensor etc. etc.) and in the first place it would be way to limited for my street photography. If I want BW, I'll convert in C1 or PS or LR.

since the price of the BW-M9 is going to be a problem, and whatever sensor you make, it won't be like film (first of all, what film would it want to simulate?) there is around 13% of the people that voted that would be a possible customer. That's not much if you're on a dedicated Leica M8/M9 forum...

 

[jaapv]

hehehe, perhaps you have a point. But you can compare apples and pears in Holland, (or apple's and oranges elsewhere) there is just not much valid to conclude about it

But the point about 100% crops and pixel-freaking that some do still stands. It's not just about a technical perfect picture, it must have a soul, it must have a story, show something, convince me, move me. Otherwise it will be just on of those 3000 holiday pictures that friends of me made during their two weeks travel in South-Africa. That's a waist of my time and their holiday.

Anyway, we're drifting away from the point in this thread.
I think a BW only 16 bit M9 could be made, it might have better pictures than my M8, but to answer the question: I wouldn't buy it for the world. I guess it would be very expensive, (IIRC the M9 is 14 bit at front, but it only puts out 8bit DNG files, so you need a whole new architecture, processor/hardware, algorithms that process the information from the sensor etc. etc.) and in the first place it would be way to limited for my street photography. If I want BW, I'll convert in C1 or PS or LR.

since the price of the BW-M9 is going to be a problem, and whatever sensor you make, it won't be like film (first of all, what film would it want to simulate?) there is around 13% of the people that voted that would be a possible customer. That's not much if you're on a dedicated Leica M8/M9 forum...

Well, my M9 puts out 16 bits files....

 

[Arjay]

Percepts, If you were to take a camera with a purely BW sensor, then this sensor would have some kind of spectral sensitivity curve, i.e. a varying sensitivity depending on light wavelength - just like BW film. Different BW films have varying sensitivity curves and as such a specific "look". Having a camera with a BW sensor would be equivalent to always shooting with the same film. Both record light intensity - the recorded intensity values depend on the medium's sensitivity curve, i.e. the value depends on actual intensity, multiplied by the medium's sensitivity at the given wavelength.

The following graph shows sensitivity curves for various film types. Consider the Y (vertical) axis value at a given wavelength as sensitivity value.

[image source: Wikipedia Germany]

If you want more control for BW processing based on a digital image, then there's no alternative to shooting in color and doing the conversion on your computer in software. A well executed BW conversion using a software like e.g. Photoshop can emulate virtually any sensitivity curve you like, and even combine different sensitivity curves (= film characteristics) and virtual correction filters for partial regions of an image to produce BW images that would require a hell of a lot more work in a wet BW lab.

Oh, and consider that all of this flexibility is only available when converting from a digital color image to a BW one. Once the conversion is completed, all this wonderful information is lost, and you just have a BW image without color channel info. Sure, you can still use varying gradations and do dodge & burn, but the real flexibility is gone.

I am convinced that no camera firmware would be able to give you a set of conversion controls that would ever be able to come close to what you can do manually on your computer.

 

[percepts]

And another thing

You only have to look at the spectral sensitivity datasheet charts from the film manufacturers to realise all films respond in a different way with different peaks, troughs and cutoff points. The camera will have no way of interpolating to any of those charts if it has not collected any wavelength data.
A wavelength filter of some kind will be required unless the camera is to just put out a raw file of light intensity which you have to post process yourself.
Back to sqaure one. You may as well just use the M9 as it currently is.

What is required is for Leica to build some better firmware/software options to replicate some common B+W films which are easier to use as a starting point for black and white digital prints.

 

[percepts]

You just beat me to it. The point is the camera must be able to collect some wavelength data to be able to replicate anything in a half sensible way. So bayer filter is required.

 

[Arjay]

You only have to look at the spectral sensitivity datasheet charts from the film manufacturers to realise all films respond in a different way with different peaks, troughs and cutoff points. The camera will have no way of interpolating to any of those charts if it has not collected any wavelength data.

I respectfully disagree. A digital camera does indeed collect this wavelength data - but in a diferent way than you think:

Just like a color film contains three layers for Red, Green and Blue, the digital camera records three color channels in its image files. Since the human eye uses exactly the same functional principle, this information is more than sufficient to reconstruct practically any color the human eye can see.

Non-filtered digital sensors intrinsically have a sensitivity curve that is much flatter and wider than any biological eye or currently available film. For this reason, most digital camera imaging sensors are equipped with an infrared filter that cuts off light beyond the end of the humanly visible spectrum. Since this filter usually isn't part of the imaging sensor, it can be removed for specific IR imaging purposes. This also explains why it is possible to emulate virtually any film characteristic (sensitivity curve) by applying virtual color filters in image editing software programs.

 

[percepts]

I respectfully disagree. A digital camera does indeed collect this wavelength data - but in a diferent way than you think:

Just like a color film contains three layers for Red, Green and Blue, the digital camera records three color channels in its image files. Since the human eye uses exactly the same functional principle, this information is more than sufficient to reconstruct practically any color the human eye can see.

Non-filtered digital sensors intrinsically have a sensitivity curve that is much flatter and wider than any biological eye or currently available film. For this reason, most digital camera imaging sensors are equipped with an infrared filter that cuts off light beyond the end of the humanly visible spectrum. Since this filter usually isn't part of the imaging sensor, it can be removed for specific IR imaging purposes. This also explains why it is possible to emulate virtually any film characteristic (sensitivity curve) by applying virtual color filters in image editing software programs.

I thought we were discussing removing the bayer filter so that the camera just collects intensity which is used for B+W. Without those filters each pixel is being hit by all wavelengths which it can't differentiate.
i.e. my point is that you need the filters to be able to do as you say. I agree with you. It is the removal of the filters I disagree with.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

the 100% crop is nice, no doubt about, shot from the hand it looks perfectly sharp. But why do you 100% crop? Do you print huge formats?
If you print at A3, a M8 would do very nicely as would most (if not all) current dSLR's.
If you do print billboard size or larger, no body cares about 100% crops-details, because you don't stand within an inch of a billboard. You can't see what it is, if you're that close.

I understand the will to reach perfection, but when you have a Leica M9, a superb Nikon or a good Canon, what could you want more? If film is that much better (and it is still better than digital) and you need that resolution why not shoot your BW in medium format film?

I want the camera for technical photography, to replace the 17 year old camera that I currently use. I do not want an interpreted image, moire, artifacts introduced from the Mosaic Filter. I want a monochrome array that gives radiance information.

And If I want to use a filter, I screw one onto the lens just like you would for black and white film. I used to use scanning densitometers and convert the density scans to radiometric images. Using a digital camera is easier.

And when you have a 1.6MPixel, 1536x1024 CCD camera, 100% crops give a decent 5x7.

No one needs to use a spectral gain flattening filter to get a good Monochrome image. But if you want to, they are readily available. They are called color correction filters. Use them with monochrome sensors to get the spectral response that you want.

How long have you guys been designing digital cameras, anyway? For me, it was 1981.

 

[percepts]

I want the camera for technical photography, to replace the 17 year old camera that I currently use. I do not want an interpreted image, moire, artifacts introduced from the Mosaic Filter. I want a monochrome array that gives radiance information.

And If I want to use a filter, I screw one onto the lens just like you would for black and white film. I used to use scanning densitometers and convert the density scans to radiometric images. Using a digital camera is easier.

And when you have a 1.6MPixel, 1536x1024 CCD camera, 100% crops give a decent 5x7.

No one needs to use a spectral gain flattening filter to get a good Monochrome image. But if you want to, they are readily available. They are called color correction filters. Use them with monochrome sensors to get the spectral response that you want.

How long have you guys been designing digital cameras, anyway? For me, it was 1981.

Horses for courses. I suspect that most Leica users would want a B+W version of the M9 to producee output just like their favorite black and white film. Well it'would never do that because of all the variables involved in producing a B+W print. Fact is no one would be satified with it unless they are prepared to accept that it will produce a different tonal rendition than B+W film. But that isn't what the original poster seemed to be asking for in his reasons given for the poll questions.
As to filters, I'm not sure I agree that you can replicate normal film look with them. But that is what it comes down to. i.e. whether you want a camera which replicates film or you want something else. And since it won't replicate film you may as well use the M9 as is and tweak output in post production to make it look the way you want. With improvements in useable ISO without noise and increased pixel count, it just wouldn't make sense for Leica to produce a B+W only camera because it wouldn't give anything more than a colour version does except to a few specialsit photogrpahers such as yourself.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Leica does produce monochrome cameras. Microscope cameras.

As far as spectral response: almost every film emulsion made gives a slightly different spectral response from other films. It's not all the same. Kodak publishes spectral response curves of their technical films. I suspect most of you have not read them or used them in software to back radiometric data out of the image.

Most people would be quite happy with the monochrome output from a monochrome sensor if they want a monochrome image. It is simply better than what you can get with a color sensor. If they wanted to vary the response to a certain color, use a filter as you would with a black and white film. It's that easy.

Until you have used a monochrome digital camera, you don't know what you are missing.

I'm not the OP of this thread, but have started others. I also had a custom monochrome/Visible+IR camera made up by Kodak. So at least my money is where my mouth is on this one.

 

[jaapv]

I don't think, Brian, that Moire is introduced by the Bayer filter, that is caused by the regular grid of pixels. The Bayer filter introduces color aliasing. And the attendant demosaicing introduces pseudo-CA aka purple fringing.

I do not want an interpreted image, moire, artifacts introduced from the Mosaic Filter. I want a monochrome array that gives radiance information.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

You are correct on that.

Color aliasing and "color speckles" are the main artifacts that I see on the M8, that I do not get on the monochrome sensor.

Moire is indeed caused by the regular grid pattern of a sensor, whether it has the mosaic filter or not. Film grain is random, and will not produce it.

 

[jaapv]

You are correct on that.

Color aliasing and "color speckles" are the main artifacts that I see

Of course, both of these will disappear in any B&W conversion, with the color noise ("speckles") that appear at high ISO probably being translated into luminance noise ( unless you are lucky in the gray values)

 

[Steve M.]

No, for 2 reasons. First, the cost of the camera! And second, after years of scanning my B&W negs and inkjet printing them I finally saw the light and do enlarger prints now. BIG difference in quality. So since you can't do enlarger prints w/ an M9, it don't fly.

$100 will buy you a Pentax Spotmatic/ Canon AE-1/ Minolta SLR, etc w/ a 50mm lens. Load it up w/ Tri-X, shoot a roll on a good subject, send it out for printing on fiber paper, and blow away any digital camera made. I think a lot of people overlook this aspect, or don't believe it. It's true. Try it yourself.

 

[jaapv]

A respected photographic magazine over here did just that a few weeks ago: best quality chemical workflow and print vs. best quality digital workflow and print. Result: The digital workflow produced prints that were clearly superior to the analog workfow in all respects. What you found:with the hybrid process, digitalizing film and printing, the result is inferior to both pure processes, is correct. It adds the weaknesses of one process to the weaknesses of the other and compounds it with the problems of scanning.

 

[David Hughes]

As soon as the M9 appeared I worked out how many miles of film I could buy for the same money and realised that a lot of it would be buried with me. Add 50% for a special short run of a B&W M9 and, well, need I go on?

Anyway, I'm sticking to FP4Plus.

Regards, David

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Maybe I should post the question "If Kodak and Ilford discontinue Black and White Film, would you buy a Monochrome M9".

For Infrared Photography, the better IR films are gone and Digital Infrared is the answer. Enough users where they either convert cameras to IR or have the conversion done. No one makes a color Infrared camera that is "affordable", ie without making an M9 look cheap.