The other day I wrote: "I'll tell you, after working with the monochrome sensor, everything from a Bayer-array color sensor looks blurry."
Chris Feola commented: "This. So much this. Since I got the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome I cannot bear to look at digital color, to the point that these days I carry a Pentax 17 loaded with Ektachrome 100 for my occasional colour shots, rather than any of my very expensive colour digicams."
We understand that 1.) many people don't like B&W and/or would rather convert their color files when they do want it. Or 2.) Maybe they don't want to shoot B&W. And 3.) Any other objection they might have to this post.
And I will grant you that the files are harder to handle than film. You need to know what you want in post-processing and know how to get it. Straight out of the camera the files mimic a film with a severe straight-line characteristic curve top to bottom, with no rolloff in the highlights and no gradual tapering of the shadows. I struggle with them sometimes, although I usually get close to where I want to be. Practice helps.
But if you like B&W, I will say that once you shoot a monochrome sensor, the lovely clarity and sharpness-without-harshness of a monochrome sensor gets pretty addicting.
Can I assume Pentax Monochrome and Leica Monochrom shooters know what I mean?
I got my camera converted here. My camera has an IR cut filter built-in, as I presume all of the commercial models do. Daniel is now doing selected Panasonic and Nikon models as well. Don't assume that everything he'll do is listed; ask him.
As related elsewhere, I waited 19 years for an affordable monochrome-sensor camera to arrive and then ordered my custom conversion just months before the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome was announced. So you have me to thank for the existence of the Pentax; the Universe was waiting patiently all those years for me to commit to an expensive alternative before solving the problem simply. You know what Rabbie Burns said, the best-laid schemes o' Mikes and men / oft go awry....
Something like that anyway. Here's one of Ned's shots with the Pentax K-3 III Mono.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Pak Ming Wan: "I certainly appreciated the bump in sharpness, but I appreciated even more the extra sensitivity of the sensor without the photons having to go through a Bayer array. In low light a monochrome camera has so much less noise and delivers cleaner images with more tone."
Jim Kofron: "Just an appreciation of this post as well as a reminder that you get (most of) the best of both worlds (color and monochrome) with the Foveon-chipped cameras from Sigma—although you don't get the fantastic sensitivity of modern sensors. I'm looking forward to the arrival of the Sigma BF—and who knows—maybe I'll go down the monochrome conversion route with that one as well."
Shaun: "I have a Sony A7r III converted by Monochrome Imaging Services. Your comment about clarity and sharpness without harshness is spot on. I didn't know my lenses were capable of the detail produced by this sensor. There is also a buttery smoothness to the tone transitions, difficult to describe but very evident in the files. Perhaps comparable to a large format contact print."
James Weekes: "Based on your experience, I had a Lumix converted by MIS and have not looked back. Lovely clarity and sharpness. A true bargain."
Someone, Olympus or Fuji or Ricoh should release a mirrorless B&W only body, if only for the novelty and bragging rights. It's not like they have to worry about long-term support of another product, no one supports anything for very long these days anyway. Let users beta test it and let some indie show us how to repair it on yt, that's the future. Was that too cynical.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 09:30 AM
Why on earth do you keep buying camera bodies with the Bayer array colour sensor? I stopped doing that with the Nikon D800E 14 years ago. I am a print exchange addict, both in B&W and Colour, and have been taking part in these (either monthly or every two months) for over 20 years. In that period I have seen (and still possess) a large number of prints by very experienced photographers/digital printers who use cameras with monochrome sensors. As far as I can see, it makes no difference at all in the real world viewing of a physical print - at least up till the A3+ size. The only use I can see is for photographers who only photograph and display in monochrome, where it would definitely make visualization easier.
Posted by: Jayanand Govindaraj | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 09:37 AM
I know this may not be considered a friendly comment, but what about using film? I personally love the look of Ilford Delta 100, and the toe/shoulder characteristics of the film are well preserved upon scanning, if I decide to go the hybrid route.
Posted by: Adrian | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 09:38 AM
You’re not helping. (You’re not helping my savings account more accurately.)
Posted by: Josh Hawkins | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 09:47 AM
A couple of years ago I picked up on the cheap an IR converted Nikon D50. I do not use it much but just want to mention how sharp the thing is. Most anything I shoot with it gets converted to B&W. Not a camera for every subject but sharp.
Going over 25 years of photos and selecting keepers for a “best of” collection I noticed how pleasing the colors are in some of old shots. Checking the info I found they were from CCD sensor cameras. Maybe not the most accurate colors when compared to modern cameras but for me they have a look. A good one at that.
Posted by: Mike Ferron | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 10:04 AM
Interesting. However, if it is challenging to process/modify the severe straight-line characteristic curve, why not just use B&W film? Nevertheless, I may try renting the Pentax and see how it works for me.
Posted by: Kodachromeguy | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 10:43 AM
I happen to have a Lumix G9 that has in-camera (raw + jpg + original single shot) 8 shot pixel shift mode. I've tested this with colour shots and it removes colour aliasing, reduces luminance aliasing, reduces noise and increases dynamic range (by about 1 2/3rd stops). If there is a visible resolution advantage, it is modest but it does permit greater sharpening. I think of the PS mode as converting my m43 camera into something akin to a FF 24MP camera.
In PS mode this camera is de-bayered so is effectively like a Foveon camera in colour or a monochrome camera in B&W mode. However, it still retains the colour channel information and therefore more flexibility than a pure monochrome camera. It has an EVF and subjects can be viewed in B&W.
I think it is worth a few trials shooting PS and converting to B&W.
The really good thing from the perspective of testing is that it also shoots a single standard resolution image at the same time, so comparisons would be very easy...
Posted by: Dave Millier | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 11:03 AM
Four Leica models to choose from: the Q2 Monochrom, and three M variants, based on the M9, M10 and M11. I own the M9 and M10 Monochroms. The 3rd M variant is based on the M10-R (40.89MP) not the M10 (24 MP), which use very different sensor architectures. And, yes, the prints can be spectacular, of course when the light and picture are worthy, and when I do my job well. The tradeoff, compared to using my color-based digital camera, is the lack of color channels in PP (always requiring subtlety), which provides more flexibility than use of colored lens filters. But the B&W shooting mindset is a key benefit for me. I’ve made superb, and mediocre, prints using both approaches. The Epson P900, in combination with ImagePrint and wonderful papers, makes digital printing a joy. Camera (and lens) gear today, color-based and monochrome, is insanely good.
Posted by: Jeff | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 12:27 PM
Most of my film work (1962 – 2020) was monochrome. When I went digital, I started shooting everything in color until Covid. I made a bunch of photographs the week before we all came home and locked down in March 2020. As I was processing those files, I started converting some to monochrome. Perhaps I was unconsciously reacting to the mood of the moment. Anyway, I have been doing more and more digital monochrome. But I have to say, I am pretty happy with the conversions I can do in Photoshop. I have a few photos that I have printed both in color and B&W. Rather like having that option.
Posted by: David Brown | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 01:14 PM
"after working with the monochrome sensor, everything from a Bayer-array color sensor looks blurry"
Hmmm... I wonder if there has been any proper A/B testing re this?
Posted by: T. Edwards | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 01:56 PM
I think a blog post on the topic of how you handle monochrome files would be very interesting.
Posted by: Leo Kawczinski | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 02:20 PM
Exactly. You might have just nailed what I see as well, color converted shots are maybe “blurry.” I’ve never thought about why very much but there definitely is something about them I don’t like. I'd much rather shoot B&W film instead of convert.
The first shot I took out of a Leica 246 Monochrom was sheer amazeballs. Not quite sure how that camera followed me home from the local used camera shop.
Every once in a while I think about having my D850 converted. That might be amazeballs, too.
Posted by: Blayne Puklich | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 02:21 PM
Trying monochrome sensor reminds me of trying proper audio setup with well known records.
Once I tried my favorite PMC i2B speakers with well suited electronics. That was a massive mistake. The system was (and still is) way out of my budget. After auditioning it I could not listen to my home audio system anymore, because all I started hearing were details that were missing compared to that "reference" system.
Switched to headphones. It's not the same yet still much better than my previous audio system.
Posted by: Tomas | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 02:39 PM
Oh I wish you wouldnt Mike, I am trying to be content with my current camera - Fuji X-T5 - for colour and monochrome. In film days I shot mono 95% of the time, now its about 90%, so a dedicated camera would make sense - if it makes so much difference. But for the money for a used Pentax mono I could get a used Fujifilm GFX 50ii, and I do wonder if the much bigger sensor size would 'compensate' for the loss of information in the colour processing? Anyone done any comparisons?
Posted by: Ritchie Thomson | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 02:41 PM
Mike, can you go further into this? Are we talking about dynamic range here? My assumption about a monochrome sensor is that the raw file would have tremendous dynamic range and gradation of tone, but it sounds like you are sort of describing the opposite?
I was a bit surprised when doing a workshop with Peter Turnley in Cuba a couple years back that he was NOT using the M Monochrome but instead preferred to convert from color? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method in your opinion?
Posted by: JOHN GILLOOLY | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 03:19 PM
Ned's picture looks sharper than yours, especially in the details.
Posted by: James Fulwider | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 04:29 PM
I prefer the original:
The best-laid schemes o' Mike an' men
Gang aft agley
That second line feels better in my mouth. \;~)>
Posted by: Moose | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 05:15 PM
"everything from a Bayer-array color sensor looks blurry"
Ctein has opined that the Bayer array and it's decoding lose about half the resolution.
"I cannot bear to look at digital color"
There is a solution for Oly/OM shooters, the HR Mode. For the kind of subjects shown here and many others, it eliminates the Bayer problem by miniscule movements of the sensor to record each pixel location with each color filter sensel (as well as in between locations).
The ORF result tends to look soft/low contrast and the JPEG is clumsily sharpened. Raw file down-sampled to the original size and properly processed, they are truer color and have better fine detail.
As Mike says: "And I will grant you that the files are harder to handle than film. " These HR files do require a bit more processing, but it sounds like less work than those monochrome files.
Posted by: Moose | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 05:34 PM
I fully believe a monochrome sensor would spoil me. In particular I am amazed at the sharpness of images that contain fine lines, such as the branches in your “Halloween 2023” photo on Flickr
https://flic.kr/p/2pg7d1a
I cannot come anywhere near that level of fine detail and never could. The optics in my Fujifilm X100s and Lumix LX100 are both supposed to be excellent, but any time I have fine lines like that they always get blurry when you zoom in. They also tend to pick up halos if I do any degree of post processing.
I am in awe of the sharpness (nice realistic sharpness, to be precise) of those images!
Posted by: Ed Hawco | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 05:42 PM
"...I waited 19 years for an affordable monochrome-sensor camera to arrive and then ordered my custom conversion just months before the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome was announced. So you have me to thank for the existence of the Pentax..."
And so it is with Rain. We need only wait for Mike to rent a camera.
Posted by: Rick Popham | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 07:37 PM
Monochrome sensor means that you can't use hue, only luminosity, in the B&W conversion. (People unfamiliar with B&W conversion won't know what that sentence means.)
Posted by: Marc Rochkind | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 08:07 PM
The monochrome sensors (converted or otherwise) are certainly lovely and have their own character. I could be happy with one.
Rather than half frame I think Ricoh/Pentax should have introduce a 120 film camera. A good marketing department could have made it a winner. The character difference to a digital sensor is a draw for me, without saying which is “better”. Horses for courses.
Posted by: Earl Dunbar | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 08:56 PM
I certainly appreciated the bump in sharpness, but I appreciated even more the extra sensitivity of the sensor without the photons having to go through a Bayer array. In low light a monochrome camera has so much less noise and delivers cleaner images with more tone.
Pak
Posted by: Pak Ming Wan | Wednesday, 02 April 2025 at 09:10 PM
I agree with Robert Roaldi. I can only hope that when Fuji releases, if they ever do, the XPRO-4, they will offer a B&W version.
Posted by: David Lee | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 01:10 AM
Someone needs to tell Jayanand Govindaraj that his D800E still has a Bayer array colour sensor; it's the anti-aliasing filter that the camera lacks.
Posted by: Stephen S. | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 03:05 AM
To paraphrase, "after working with 100M big fat pixels, everything from a 24x36 sensor looks blurry." Yeah, I know it's not really equivalent, but it's very real.
Ned's sample photo is lovely, with a very natural look, but you need to remind folks to download the original, and ignore the "Flickr-fied" version.
Posted by: Luke | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 08:01 AM
Mr Rochkind said: "Monochrome sensor means that you can't use hue, only luminosity, in the B&W conversion." And you said (on a slightly different topic), "You need to know what you want in post-processing and know how to get it."
It's tricky, and I have a lot to learn, but it's easy and fun to experiment. Even with color, 100M big fat pixels provide enough info to get "the lovely clarity and sharpness-without-harshness of a monochrome sensor", particularly when sized to match the K3 M, or FP-L.
Posted by: Luke | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 08:30 AM
Is there such a thing as too much sharpness?
Yes, indeed, there is! (google hot chili challenges)
I do not need more sharpness than my Bayer array sensors are able to deliver, and what's more: They deliver colours, as well.
Posted by: Anton Wilhelm Stolzing | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 08:32 AM
Pixel shift is great if you have static subjects. My K1 II has a "motion correction" setting for the pixel shift. It's supposed to counteract the shaking when using the camera without a tripod.
(The ability of the camera makers to control the sensor in such a fine adjustment still boggles my mind.)
I suppose it might work if it also were able to control the subject movement as well.
(If you've seen unsharp color photos printed in a newspaper, you may have noticed the color registration marks aren't perfectly aligned. Now ask a camera to align at least four photos without anything moving!)
Unfortunately, I don't take many shots of absolutely static subjects. (The top of tall buildings are slightly moving on a windy day.)
The feature may work perfectly, but so much of the world is moving that I would have to search out subjects that are static enough to take advantage of pixel shift photography. In that case, I wouldn't be taking photos of subjects that interest me.
The great thing about a monochrome sensor, is that the shutter speed alone will (basically) guarantee a very sharp photo. [The world wouldn't have to stand still between (pixel) shots to be sharp.]
Posted by: Dave | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 10:12 AM
I spent a year with an M10 Monochrom. The images were very detailed, and the low light performance was outstanding. I didn't find it changed my shooting in any useful manner, and I don't think my prints were any better than from my color cameras. I shoot mostly black and white, but have no interest in a monochrome digital camera any more.
Posted by: Clyde Rogers | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 12:46 PM
You discussed sharpness and detail on the internet, which can lead to everyone squinting at jpegs and arguing. But it can be fun in good company.
I just returned from a trip to Chicago where I mostly used a cheap Pentax 35 lens on my Z7 (high res, no AA filter), the recent FA HD f2 version of the screwdrive classic. Looking at 100 percent, sharpness looks great, color is great, contrast is great. At 200 percent, it's not up to the modern Nikon lens levels, but this is a $350 throwback. Pentax does contrast well, so images have a little more of a saturated look.
Now I want to try it on my bw converted Nikon Z6, to see what happens. I bet it's good!
Posted by: John Krumm | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 01:40 PM
>>Hmmm... I wonder if there has been any proper A/B testing re this?<<
Here's Pentax Forums test of the K-3 III Colour vs the K-3 III Monochrome. Same camera. Same sensor. The only difference is the Colour has the Bayer array. Here's the ISO comparison page; the difference above 12k ISO is staggering. Which means there's endless detail in shadows the Monochrome captures that no Bayer camera can.
Posted by: Chris Feola | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 09:21 PM
>> Are we talking about dynamic range here? My assumption about a monochrome sensor is that the raw file would have tremendous dynamic range and gradation of tone, but it sounds like you are sort of describing the opposite?<<
The difference is that the Monochrome offers endless tonal range and detail in the shadows. The files are just meatier, and you have so much more to work with. The nearest comparison I can come up with is when I had my first photography class at the Savannah College of Art and Design. I'd been a professional photojournalist for a few years by that point, shooting hundreds of frames a day of Tri-X through my Pentaxes. So the professor gave me a 4x5 field camera and film holders with Tri-X. When I got to the darkroom I was stunned. After all, you can print an 8x10 from 35mm Tri-X; why would 4x5 Tri-X 8x10s be any different?
But those beautiful, meaty 4x5 negs just had So. Much. More. to work with...
Posted by: Chris Feola | Thursday, 03 April 2025 at 09:27 PM
Sorry; somehow dropped the link to the K-3 III Colour vs Monochrome comparison: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-mark-iii-monochrome-review/iso-comparison.html
Posted by: Chris Feola | Friday, 04 April 2025 at 03:58 PM
I’d love to see you write about the current state of digital B&W printing, Mike. Especially how you made that print.
Posted by: Peter, in Boulder | Friday, 04 April 2025 at 05:44 PM
IMO this is just silliness...or cognitive bias? I have a Foveon camera which does equivalent-to-monochrome exposures....and with a lens that probably beats most. If you do blind comparisons of prints from Monochrome sensor, Foveon sensor, Bayer pixel-shift sensor, and Bayer sensor of 2x the pixel count.... I would lay folding green down on the claimants being humiliated.
Posted by: Arg | Saturday, 05 April 2025 at 09:14 AM