[Edward Brock]

PLEASE forgive me, I Do Not want to start a war or receive Hate Mail about this. I just want to be educatd.
I have not shot B&W since the mid 1960's. I'm not sure what the attraction is for a B&W dslr. I've only shot
one photo in B&W on my Kx and not any on my K70 even though I can set it to do so.
That being said, I know there must be (Apparently) many who either do or want to. But I don't quite get why
Pentax went with a K-3 iii that shoots only B&W. ((To Me)) it seems like a flot of money to buy a camera just
for that when their other Pentax cameras already shoot B&W.
What am I missing out on? Is there really That much demand for this camera? OR is it that "We" are so addicted
to our beloved Pentax that we must have the latest of what they Make?
Please remember that I'm asking out of ignorance of the B&W movement.. Not to stir up Hate Mail or insults.
I really am just curious.

---------- Post added 04-19-23 at 08:13 PM ----------

Depends on how many Hot Wheels cars you have and their vintage., Those little things can get pretty darned expensive and all they do is sit on a shelf and collect dust!

Mine sure collect a lot of dust since I can't actually take one down and drive it.

[Sandy Hancock]

What am I missing out on?

There is a multitude of articles and videos covering this, but to summarise (to the best of my limited knowledge):

With a colour sensor, the light is divided between a grid of red, blue and (two) green pixels, so red and blue objects have a quarter of the detail, and green objects half, of the theoretical maximum. There is no need for that with an equivalent monochrome sensor, so detail is increased, dynamic range is wider, and high ISO noise (especially chroma noise) is better controlled.

Much the same as it was with film in the olden days, actually

That's no doubt a gross over-simplification, but I hope it helps!

[Wheatfield]

PLEASE forgive me, I Do Not want to start a war or receive Hate Mail about this. I just want to be educatd.
I have not shot B&W since the mid 1960's. I'm not sure what the attraction is for a B&W dslr. I've only shot
one photo in B&W on my Kx and not any on my K70 even though I can set it to do so.
That being said, I know there must be (Apparently) many who either do or want to. But I don't quite get why
Pentax went with a K-3 iii that shoots only B&W. ((To Me)) it seems like a flot of money to buy a camera just
for that when their other Pentax cameras already shoot B&W.
What am I missing out on? Is there really That much demand for this camera? OR is it that "We" are so addicted
to our beloved Pentax that we must have the latest of what they Make?
Please remember that I'm asking out of ignorance of the B&W movement.. Not to stir up Hate Mail or insults.
I really am just curious.

A number of people have always prefered to shoot B&W instead of colour. My own personal photography was almost all B&W from when I started shooting in around 1970 until 2003 or so when I had to dismantle my darkroom for a home renovation, never to return. I shot colour for money, but I did very little personal work in colour.
I think now there is a bit of a fad in place which has swelled the number of people who are shooting B&W and may be dabblers for a while, but there will always people who prefer it.

[pschlute]

What am I missing out on?

As has been pointed out above a monochrome camera will yield sharper images, better noise control at high ISO, and wider DR. Colour-noise will be non-existent leading to a more film-like grain appearance at higher ISO. These factors will be of great benefit when printing images, and indeed the increase in apparent resolution will enable larger prints than would be possible with a colour image that was de-saturated.

There has always been a strong interest in b+w photography. The reason Pentax produced this camera is they asked their customer base in their largest market what they wanted.... this came out on top.

The other thing to consider is that r+d costs will have been less for the K3 III Monochrome (Kimono) as the base camera was already in production.

If b+w photography is not your thing then I doubt the camera will appeal. But for those who do a lot of this style of photography, the new camera offers something genuinely new to Pentax shooters.

[Rondec]

PLEASE forgive me, I Do Not want to start a war or receive Hate Mail about this. I just want to be educatd.
I have not shot B&W since the mid 1960's. I'm not sure what the attraction is for a B&W dslr. I've only shot
one photo in B&W on my Kx and not any on my K70 even though I can set it to do so.
That being said, I know there must be (Apparently) many who either do or want to. But I don't quite get why
Pentax went with a K-3 iii that shoots only B&W. ((To Me)) it seems like a flot of money to buy a camera just
for that when their other Pentax cameras already shoot B&W.
What am I missing out on? Is there really That much demand for this camera? OR is it that "We" are so addicted
to our beloved Pentax that we must have the latest of what they Make?
Please remember that I'm asking out of ignorance of the B&W movement.. Not to stir up Hate Mail or insults.
I really am just curious.

---------- Post added 04-19-23 at 08:13 PM ----------



Mine sure collect a lot of dust since I can't actually take one down and drive it.

The reason that Pentax is making it is because they surveyed a bunch of folks and found that there was interest in such a camera. For people who are interested in such a camera, the K-3 III monochrome has to seem like a nice deal compared to 4000 dollars that Leica charges for their monochrome camera.

As to why people are interested in such a camera, others have said. First, there are a lot of people who prefer to shoot black and white images. Looking back to Ansel Adams, he preferred large format cameras and black and white photography. He did occasionally shoot in color, but that was the exception rather than the rule. Second, if you prefer to shoot monochrome images, you will get better results using a monochrome sensor. You can actually convert any camera to monochrome, but to do so is expensive and voids the warranty on the camera.

No one is buying one of these cameras simply to "support" Pentax. They are doing it because such a camera fits with their style of shooting and will add benefit over simply converting color images to black and white.

[AAlfano]

The reason that Pentax is making it is because they surveyed a bunch of folks and found that there was interest in such a camera. For people who are interested in such a camera, the K-3 III monochrome has to seem like a nice deal compared to 4000 dollars that Leica charges for their monochrome camera.

As to why people are interested in such a camera, others have said. First, there are a lot of people who prefer to shoot black and white images. Looking back to Ansel Adams, he preferred large format cameras and black and white photography. He did occasionally shoot in color, but that was the exception rather than the rule. Second, if you prefer to shoot monochrome images, you will get better results using a monochrome sensor. You can actually convert any camera to monochrome, but to do so is expensive and voids the warranty on the camera.

No one is buying one of these cameras simply to "support" Pentax. They are doing it because such a camera fits with their style of shooting and will add benefit over simply converting color images to black and white.

The Leica M11 Monochrome is priced at $9,200: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1760461-REG/leica_m11_monochrom_range...981&

[Larrymc]

Let me add one little tidbit about why a monochrome only camera from Pentax. Monochrome images, in my opinion always add a sense of drama to the scene along with detail that color doesn't. You can't get that with color images converted to Black and White. I've tried to get that using DXO Film Pack one of the better color to black and white processing packages. I'd love to buy a K-3 III monochrome but its just not in the cards for me right now, but I do think it is a great move on the part of Ricoh/Pentax.

[James O'Neill]

PLEASE forgive me, I Do Not want to start a war or receive Hate Mail about this. I just want to be educatd.
I have not shot B&W since the mid 1960's. I'm not sure what the attraction is for a B&W dslr. I've only shot
one photo in B&W on my Kx and not any on my K70 even though I can set it to do so.
That being said, I know there must be (Apparently) many who either do or want to. But I don't quite get why
Pentax went with a K-3 iii that shoots only B&W. ((To Me)) it seems like a flot of money to buy a camera just
for that when their other Pentax cameras already shoot B&W.
What am I missing out on? Is there really That much demand for this camera? OR is it that "We" are so addicted
to our beloved Pentax that we must have the latest of what they Make?
Please remember that I'm asking out of ignorance of the B&W movement.. Not to stir up Hate Mail or insults.
I really am just curious.

---------- Post added 04-19-23 at 08:13 PM ----------



Mine sure collect a lot of dust since I can't actually take one down and drive it.

It's a valid question and the honest answer is a lot of us are still trying to work it out.
Colour - as people have already said - puts a filter array where one row goes red-green-red-green-red-green, and the next goes green-blue-green-blue-green-blue in front of the sensor, So my 36MP K1 has 9M Red, 9MBlue and 18M Green pixels. For a each pixel it calculates the missing colours from the neighbouring pixels, so the smallest detail you can resolve is a few pixels across. If a red pixel reads 100 and it's green and blue neighbours read 0, it could be something very small - but not necessarily red, or something very red, but not necessarily small.
If you're really cynical about it you can say the K1 isn't 36MP but 9MP interpolated out to 36.

We can convert colour to give a mono image, the quick way is viewing each R,G,B value as hue, saturation and lightness and throwing away hue and saturation,
If we shoot on Panchromatic film, blue sky and cloud look very similar so we need to expose through a filter to darken the blue - red will look super dramatic, yellow has just a little effect. Filters change how skin tones look, or foliage and all sorts of things. With a colour digital file we could just keep the Red channel (for example) to simulate a Red filter with B&W film; or Red and some green to simulate an orange filter or any blend to get the desired filter when we convert If we simulate a red filter we did not have 36M Red readings, we have thrown away the green and blue parts of the spectrum and interpolated out 9M red readings out to 36MP.

With a mono sensor we're reading brightness of the whole spectrum at every pixel - we don't need to borrow from the neighbours, and if we put a red filter in front of the lens were measuring red at every pixels not 1 in 4. So a mono sensor gets more resolution, and with no filter blocking 2/3 of the visible spectrum from reaching the pixels the base ISO of the sensor goes up; but any filter must be applied when the exposure is made.

Some of us say, yes that's all very good, but I'm not limited by the resolution I have, or by the ISO I can use today, so does a mono sensor offer anything to me?
Maybe. For some photographers going out with a camera which only shoots mono (and not taking a second one with colour ability) shapes the shots they look for - they can't get into a mono mindset with a colour camera, or get into it better with a mono one.
And recording the whole spectrum at each pixel is going to have a different effect from splitting to red green and blue and recombining later. How different ? That for me is the big unknown, but it will vary from picture to picture.

We're seeing great mono from K3-iiiMono and the pictures divide in 3 buckets.

1. The photographer would have got much the same result with the standard K3iii, but got more resolution and lower noise (even if we can't see it in normal viewing)
2. The standard K3iii could produce the same shot, but the photographer wouldn't have thought to take that shot with the colour camera
3. Something about the shot needs the specific tonal rendering of a mono camera. Even if the photographer had taken the shot on the standard K3-iii, no conversion would yield quite the same feel.

A fourth of "the way the picture is used makes use of the extra resolution" doesn't apply when we're seeing pictures on the web.

Those who have made up their minds that a mono camera (Pentax or Leica) is like the emperor's new clothes will say almost everything belongs in the (1)
Those who are lining up to buy the camera will say a lot more is in (3)

I'm looking on and thinking I don't know. I can't be alone in having days when you shoot something, get a shot you're really happy with early on, relax, try things which could fail, because having a good shot you don't need to do the percentage ones, and shoot stuff that you're even happier with. I think what's going on in the photographers head matters, and so some shots belong in (2) above. I've no idea how many. But sometimes I'll take a photo with the K1 which I could have done with my phone. But I would never have looked for the photo without the "proper" camera


Sorry for the long answer. But rest assured the question was valid

[reh321]

I have traditionally used B&W when color provides unneeded or misleading ‘information’ to a scene. For example, following information at a website, I went South of here looking for an old train station. It was white on three sides, but the front was lime green. A passer-by told me that the owner had a dispute with the town fathers. I don’t know how it was painted when it was a station, but all four sides looked basically the same in B&W, and faithfully captured the shape.

On another ‘adventure’ following the same site, I went to the nearby town of Winnamac. A brass plaque on the side of a {pleasantly green} building proclaimed that it had been built as Pennsylvania RR station, but was now owned by a local gardening club. As I thought about it, it did look familiar. I discovered I had already photographed it in 1988, during the Conrail era. It was no longer in use - the tracks had been abandoned - so I listed it as owned by Penn Central, which had come between the Pennsylvania and Conrail. It was dirty brown, which is probably how it had looked when last used by some railroad, be it the PRR, PC, or CR, and photographing it in B&W in the 2010’s would have been entirely appropriate, since the gardening club color would have told us nothing, but I wouldn’t use a separate camera for that. My primary camera is a 24MP KP, which cost me $700, so I’m in a completely different category.

[UlrichSchiegg]

I don't really understand this counting discussion for light collection. A pixel would have 2 green, one blue, one red (Understanding Digital Camera Sensors). To understand how much light is gathered, the quantum efficiency as function of wave length needs to be considered. Sensitivity to green is much higher compared to blue or red (filtered on top). 1EV better (K-3 iii color vs mon) was given from the practical side so far. That is also about the difference between FF vs APSC on similar sensor technology.

[gatorguy]

It's a valid question and the honest answer is a lot of us are still trying to work it out...
We're seeing great mono from K3-iiiMono and the pictures divide in 3 buckets.

2. The photographer would have got much the same result with the standard K3iii, but got more resolution and lower noise (even if we can't see it in normal viewing)
3. The standard K3iii could produce the same shot, but the photographer wouldn't have thought to take that shot with the colour camera
4. Something about the shot needs the specific tonal rendering of a mono camera. Even if the photographer had taken the shot on the standard K3-iii, no conversion would yield quite the same feel.

A fourth of "the way the picture is used makes use of the extra resolution" doesn't apply when we're seeing pictures on the web.

Those who have made up their minds that a mono camera (Pentax or Leica) is like the emperor's new clothes will say almost everything belongs in the (1)
Those who are lining up to buy the camera will say a lot more is in (3)

I'm looking on and thinking I don't know. I can't be alone in having days when you shoot something, get a shot you're really happy with early on, relax, try things which could fail, because having a good shot you don't need to do the percentage ones, and shoot stuff that you're even happier with. I think what's going on in the photographers head matters, and so some shots belong in (2) above. I've no idea how many. But sometimes I'll take a photo with the K1 which I could have done with my phone. But I would never have looked for the photo without the "proper" camera


Sorry for the long answer. But rest assured the question was valid

The initial reason I decided to use a dedicated monochrome camera was firmly based in #1. I saw some captivating images posted by our member Medex, and the ones that pushed my over the edge were photos he took for a K50 (?) he was offering. So much fine detail! Searching up which camera he used it was a K3 monochrome.

I bought it.

Here's the thing:
Since then I found it forces me into a different mindset. I find images now that I previously would not have simply because I'm looking thru different eyes, far more cognizant of contrasts, shadows, shapes. Further, most of these I would never have thought of converting over from a color image. I suppose I always had a secret love of black and white, for when I go thru some of my favorite shots over the years a significant number of them are converted from color. My monochrome cameras have made me aware of it.

A few months in I unequivocally believe having to dedicate myself to B&W for entire shoots, even weeks, has made me a vastly-improved photographer even when I carry my normal Pentax cameras. My images are noticeably better whether color or monochrome, something my wife also mentioned to me a couple of weeks ago.

So while I've long had multiple cameras, it was not until I bought a K3m that my craft was so quickly improved by one of them. Upgrading to the K3III and K1 was exactly that. Nice upgrades. I'm now firmly in the #2 and #3 reasons camp. Number 1 only convinced me to try a dedicated monochrome camera and it is no longer a factor.

[str8talk83]

Regardless of each individuals justification of purchasing this camera, I think it's really nice that it was created based on customer demand on a survey. These will always be niche devices and I feel like Pentax has been more and more in that niche category since they chose to not join the mirrorless revolution. I think this is probably a wise decision given the current market and puts the company into an interesting (and useful) place in today's photography.

[thibs]

If you're really cynical about it you can say the K1 isn't 36MP but 9MP interpolated out to 36.

IMO completely true. It doesn't mean nothing more is extracted thanks to demosaicing but still true.

[thibs]

The interesting but would be a comparison (same shot of course) between :
- a KIII with pixel shift converted to monochrome
- a K3-III monochrome

[gatorguy]

The interesting but would be a comparison (same shot of course) between :
- a KIII with pixel shift converted to monochrome
- a K3-III monochrome

Interesting exercise for technical purposes, ignoring of course that PixelShift does not like motion and therefore pretty limited. But IMHO that's not where the advantages of using a dedicated monochrome camera will show themselves.