Are there any monochrome digicams?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The only one I know of is the Kodak DCS-660M, a $10K professional
camera that's been discontinued for a few years.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7xpswkvzwd.fsf_-_@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> says...
> The only one I know of is the Kodak DCS-660M, a $10K professional
> camera that's been discontinued for a few years.

Why do you need a monochrome camera ? There are several monochrome CCDs
for industrial use, but with a low resolution.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes:
> > The only one I know of is the Kodak DCS-660M, a $10K professional
> > camera that's been discontinued for a few years.
>
> Why do you need a monochrome camera ? There are several monochrome CCDs
> for industrial use, but with a low resolution.

For the same reason I used to like to shoot with monochrome film. I
like black-and-white pictures. Of course I could have shot color film
and them converted to black-and-white, but there's a loss of quality,
same as shooting with a color digicam through a Bayer sensor.

There's a more technical application I have in mind too, which is
document copying. With a monochrome camera I could shoot under
monochromatic light and avoid all the chromatic aberrations in the
optics. With a color camera, shooting under monochromatic light would
give a big resolution loss, again because of the Bayer sensor.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Allodoxaphobia <bit-bucket@config.com> writes:
> > It ought to be possible to make an excellent small B&W digicam
> > inexpensively.
>
> And, what would be the incentive (def: profit) in making one?

Um, the idea is to sell them for more than it costs to make them.
Film manufacturers still make a profit doing that with B&W film, for
example.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xpswkvzwd.fsf_-_@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> The only one I know of is the Kodak DCS-660M, a $10K professional
> camera that's been discontinued for a few years.

20D???

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7x1x906l7k.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> says...

> Um, the idea is to sell them for more than it costs to make them.
> Film manufacturers still make a profit doing that with B&W film, for
> example.

I suspect the market is not big enough for such a camera.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>> I very much doubt there'd be enough people who found the benefits
>> worthwhile to justify producing such a model. But I can hope. The
>> higher light sensitivity is the big win I see for me.
>
> I don't understand why it should be such a problem. Canon has made
> several film SLR's with fixed reflex mirrors (e.g. EOS RT) to reduce
> shutter lag. The market for that type of camera isn't so huge either,
> but apparently it was large enough to make those models profitable.
> I'd see a monochrome digicam as being about the same way. Ilford even
> makes monochrome disposable cameras.

I'll bet the monochrome disposable cameras are the same plastic body
as their others, simply loaded with a different film and a different
cardboard sleeve.

I note that *only* Canon has ever made a pellicle SLR for the ordinary
photography market; it seems to be not that popular. And Kodak *did*
of course make several monochrome digital cameras in the past.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
> I'll bet the monochrome disposable cameras are the same plastic body
> as their others, simply loaded with a different film and a different
> cardboard sleeve.

Correct, however, it means people are buying them.

> I note that *only* Canon has ever made a pellicle SLR for the ordinary
> photography market; it seems to be not that popular. And Kodak *did*
> of course make several monochrome digital cameras in the past.

Canon has made at least three pellicle SLR's (Canon 7(?) in the
1960's, EOS RT, and EOS-1RS) at different times. I think there was
also a pellicle version of the F-1. Nikon has made at least one also
(the F2H). The market for these things, and the willingness of camera
manufacturers to make them, has persisted across decades of time.

I know of the Kodak DCS-660M but don't know of other Kodak monochrome
cameras.

I think it's starting to be time for a D70M, EOS-20DM, or something
like that.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:
> > The only one I know of is the Kodak DCS-660M, a $10K professional
> > camera that's been discontinued for a few years.
>
> The 20D, among others (340D?) has a monochrome setting...

That just means the color image is converted to monochrome by software
in the camera, sort of like shooting a color photo on color film and
then converting it to monochrome by scanning it after it's been
developed. What I'm asking for is the equivalent of black-and-white
film, that gives monochrome pictures directly, without the speed
quality loss resulting from the color layers and chemistry.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Justin Thyme" <pleasedontspamme@nowhere.com> wrote:
<snip>
>This is one area I think digital still lacks - I
> would love a system that had user-replaceable sensors, just like I can
> replace film for different conditions. How good would it be to be able to
> fit a 12MP ISO50 sensor for landscapes, then switch to a 4MP ISO1600 B&W
> sensor at night? (Yes I would prefer 4 low-noise MP, over 8 noisy MP with
> the ISO gained). Or fit a high contrast sensor, or a low-contrast sensor?
> Change to infrared? There's no reason why it can't be done. Yes I know it
> would be expensive - such a camera would be more expensive than the current
> crop of DSLR's, and the sensors themselves would probably cost a pretty
> penny, but it would allow so much more versatility. At the very least it
> would be nice to be able to order my XYZ DSLR with a choice of sensors -
> high ISO lowMP, low ISO high MP, B&W or colour etc.

I think that the problem with this idea is that the image sensor in a
DSLR is such a huge fraction of the cost that it wouldn't be much
cheaper than having several cameras with different fixed sensors.
It would be just like having a seperate camera for each type of film
you want to shoot, granted that I've done it myself (ISO 100 in one
body and ISO 400 in another) and found that the digital solution of
one sensor and different settings sufficient (and far less bulky).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xacnn8ui8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "John G" <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>> Just shows how many people do not RTFM.
>> Many cameras, all of the Canon A range etc, have a Photo effect setting
>> of black and white and one of Sepia.
>
> No, you have not been reading the thread or don't know what the
> DCS-660M was. By monochrome digicam I mean one with a monochrome
> sensor with no Bayer filters. The DCS-660M is the only one of those
> that I know of. Those cameras with black-and-white settings are just
> color cameras with the "desaturate" function of
> GIMP/Photoshop/whatever built into the camera software.

BTW, was the DCS-660M a Canon mount? I seem to remember that there was
one...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:

> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7xpswkvzwd.fsf_-_@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>> The only one I know of is the Kodak DCS-660M, a $10K professional
>> camera that's been discontinued for a few years.
>
> The 20D, among others (340D?) has a monochrome setting...

Sure, they all have a monochrome setting, even my Epson 850Z has a
monochrome setting, but that doesn't give *any* of the advantages of a
real monochrome digicam, as outlined in this thread.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dj NME" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4959b3a4.0504241838.496f9fab@posting.google.com...
> "Justin Thyme" <pleasedontspamme@nowhere.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I think that the problem with this idea is that the image sensor in a
> DSLR is such a huge fraction of the cost that it wouldn't be much
> cheaper than having several cameras with different fixed sensors.
I'm not so sure that it is such a major component. Eg here in Australia A
Pentax *ist Sells for around $700-$800, while the digital version *istDS
sells for about $1300. Now one can assume that the cost of the body plastic,
shutter mechanisms, exposure computer etc would be pretty similar between
them. The digital version doesn't need a film motor, but adds a card reader,
image processor, lcd screen, and of course the sensor for about $500. At a
guess then I'd think the sensor would be worth somewhere around $300. In
Australia camera gear tends to be about double the US price, so I'm guessing
around $150US for the sensor. Now lets say we add a bit for a mounting so
the sensor can be interchanged, and of course it would have to have some
amount of driving circuitry to account for the differences between sensors,
so I'd be thinking about $500AUS / $250US for a sensor. At that price, I'm
sure there would be plenty of people who would be willing to purchase
different sensors for different particular needs.
> It would be just like having a seperate camera for each type of film
> you want to shoot, granted that I've done it myself (ISO 100 in one
> body and ISO 400 in another) and found that the digital solution of
> one sensor and different settings sufficient (and far less bulky).
I still haven't fully taken the plunge into digital, but over the weekend
was lucky enough to borrow an Olympus E300. At ISO 100 in daylight it is
fantastic, and I fell in love with the camera. I then had cause to take it
out into a low-light situation where I had to hand-hold. My Pentax was
loaded with my old staple Neopan 1600, while I jacked up the ISO in the
Olympus to 1600. I haven't yet dev'd the Neopan, but I know from past shoots
in this exact situation that the images will be very nice. The Olympus
however produced nothing usable. Noise was absolutely hopeless. Now I know
that the Olympus's are known for noise due to their small sensor, but even
still, the camera was hopeless in this circumstance. All it took was a
change of film to get the film camera running nice in this situation. So if
I could have changed sensor to something that could deliver native ISO1600,
even if only 4MP, I could conveniently use the camera both in daylight, and
in low-light situations. Even without interchangeable sensors, it would at
least be nice to be able to purchase the same body but with different sensor
config's, so for example I could have a high speed B&W body and a low-speed
colour body. Like you, I already run different films in different cameras,
but of course can change any camera to any film as needed.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <51luj2-s25.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>In article <gsYae.23$f_2.1526@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,
>John G <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>Just shows how many people do not RTFM.
>>Many cameras, all of the Canon A range etc, have a Photo effect setting
>>of black and white and one of Sepia.
>
>The problem with doing that is that if you want to use a red filter, or just
>take the red channel, as is common with black and white, then your nice
>x-megapixel camera effectively becomes an x/4 megapixel camera.

If you take the red channel of an unfiltered image, then the green channel
still provides luminance information.

As long as a filter results in enough response in the green channel,
luminance information will remain detailed.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7xpswkvzwd.fsf_-_@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

>The only one I know of is the Kodak DCS-660M, a $10K professional
>camera that's been discontinued for a few years.

There are several B&W modes on the EOS 20D, really easy to select,
and the results are quite convincing. You can even do virtual filters.
I could convince myself that the output was shot on Tri-X.

I realize you're looking at pro cameras of an order of magnitude more
resolution than mine. I'm pretty sure that if I lived in your world,
I'd do tests with a digicam and break out the Dierdorff or the Speed
Graphic for the high-res shot.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

james wrote:

> In article <7xpswkvzwd.fsf_-_@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>The only one I know of is the Kodak DCS-660M, a $10K professional
>>camera that's been discontinued for a few years.
>
>
> There are several B&W modes on the EOS 20D, really easy to select,
> and the results are quite convincing. You can even do virtual filters.
> I could convince myself that the output was shot on Tri-X.
>
> I realize you're looking at pro cameras of an order of magnitude more
> resolution than mine. I'm pretty sure that if I lived in your world,
> I'd do tests with a digicam and break out the Dierdorff or the Speed
> Graphic for the high-res shot.


Actually he's looking for a cheap pocket B&W that shoots clean images
comparable to a big DSLR or better. Fewer pixels but each pixel is three
times better. I think someone will make one eventually.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> writes:
> Actually he's looking for a cheap pocket B&W that shoots clean images
> comparable to a big DSLR or better. Fewer pixels but each pixel is
> three times better. I think someone will make one eventually.

No, I'm looking for a monochrome DSLR in the general build and price
category as the D70 or D100. The only thing like that so far has been
the DCS-660M which was about 20x as expensive as a D70.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 25 Apr 2005 15:32:52 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

>fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) writes:
>> There are several B&W modes on the EOS 20D, really easy to select,
>> and the results are quite convincing. You can even do virtual filters.
>> I could convince myself that the output was shot on Tri-X.
>
>There have already been at least 5 different messages in this thread
>so far explaining how "monochrome mode" in a color camera is different
>from a monochrome camera. Please read those before suggesting
>"monochrome mode".

Without question I would be very interested if Canon produced
a Power Shot A95 (5MP) with a true "monochrome" sensor. The money
they save by not needing a Bayer filter, could be spent on a switch
selectable I.R. cut filter. Lot's of people use their digital cameras
to do infrared (I.R.) photography, actually "near infrared (N.I.R.),
so for this alone I think there would be considerable interest.

The only problem here might be how such a sensitive N.I.R.
digital camera might be misused in the same way that Sony video
camcorders were when they 1st introduced "Night Shot" by people
wanting to get a semi-see through clothing effect with certain types
of clothing.

Sad that a relative few can deprive so many of useful products
because of legal liability issues that might be faced by the
manufacturers of any such equipment by it's misuse.

The only primary reason I noted the A95 was because it has
lot's of manual & semi-manual features that would make it a good
camera for such a conversion, many others would do fine also. Add a
HOYA R72 filter & you would have a very sensitive N.I.R. camera able
to take such pictures handheld in most cases. With the I.R. cut
filter in place it would still be a nice B&W digital camera for use
both outdoors & indoors with reasonably clean results even in low
lighting.

I would rather a clean B&W picture taken of somebody indoors
in low lighting than a very grainy or blurred color picture from
having to use too slow of a shutter speed to stop the action/movement.

Just my 2 cents worth from an avid amateur photographer.

Respectfully, DHB

..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918