Originally posted by ThorSanchez "Far inferior" meaning it is possible to notice some differences if you know what you're looking for and are printing or displaying very large, or you've cropped quite a lot. I would guess that in a large majority of cases showing a non-photographer two 20x30" B&W prints of the same scene, one with a monochrome sensor one with an otherwise identical color sensor... they'd struggle to see any differences.
I don't fundamentally disagree, but the same argument can be applied to higher resolution sensors over lower-res, higher iso / higher dynamic range capability vs lower, higher-end lenses vs consumer glass, etc. - and yet we flock to buy the more-capable, higher-end gear, don't we? For the majority of my photography and output requirements, I could have got by quite adequately with a 10MP K10D / Samsung GX-10, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and maybe a couple of primes (I often do, in fact). It didn't stop me buying a 16MP K-5, then a 24MP K-3 and K-3II, the HD DA Limiteds, DA*60-250 and bunch of other decent mid-range glass. That's what we amateur photographers do, isn't it?
Originally posted by ThorSanchez I've taken a number of nice landscapes with the K-3 II, converted them to B&W in post, then had Digital Silver Imaging print at 20x30, and hung them on my living room wall.
I don't doubt it - and I'm sure they look excellent.
Originally posted by ThorSanchez I almost guarantee having a monochrome sensor would have changed little or nothing about how those photographs turned out and are viewed.
I respect your opinion, but we honestly don't know... You may be right, you may not; but, again, see my comment above. Quantifiable benefit in the intended output medium doesn't drive all of our purchasing decisions. We buy equipment we want or like the idea of, regardless of whether it will result in a better end product.
Originally posted by ThorSanchez Having said all that, I'm sure there are edge cases and situations where a monochrome sensor is nice. But most photographers would get nearly identical results with color conversion and save themselves a fair amount
Yup. And most photographers would get sufficient resolution from a 16MP K-5IIs... but it didn't stop folks wanting and buying a 24MP K-3 / K-3II or KP, or a 26MP K-3III. Most amateur photographers don't go into their buying decisions thinking "
What's the minimum I can get away with for my use-cases". We probably
should, but very often we
don't.
Originally posted by ThorSanchez Thinking about this a bit more... wouldn't that be a strange thing? The K-3 Mark III is definitely geared towards action photography. One of its biggest selling points is near-D500 level autofocus, and Pentax' first usable AF-C with tracking. Along with Pentax' highest frame rate ever, and with great high ISO capabilities for keeping shutter speed high in low light. But then to turn out a B&W version of that? I guess it would be an awesome tool to simulate an alternate universe there you're the world's greatest sports photographer in 1930.
The K-3III is well-featured for action photography, for sure - but in other respects it's "just" a natural evolution of the K-3 / K-3II, with improved AF, improved image quality and dynamic range and an extended feature set (e.g. non-GPS astro). If you want a current, pro / semi-pro quality APS-C camera with "PENTAX" on the front, you buy the K-3III whether-or-not you're an action photographer. Some time ago I made the decision to stick with APS-C in my Pentax gear, as I prefer the size and weight of the bodies and lenses... so, if I were buying a new K-mount camera today, the logical choice for me - even though I don't shoot much action - is a K-3III.
As for the B&W / 1930s comment, I don't really know how to respond on that. Monochrome imaging is as artistically relevant today as it's always been...
Last edited by BigMackCam; 04-08-2022 at 05:57 AM.