Best Monochrome Options 2025 - Leica? Converted Files? Converted Cameras?

[brusby]

For a different perspective -- I chose to forego dedicated monochrome cameras in favor of just using my regular color camera and doing b&w conversions from the color dngs. I'm not denigrating mono cameras, in fact I think they are terrific under certain conditions. There are certainly advantages to using monochrome when conditions are optimum, but, often they aren't, and in those cases there can be significant limitations or hurdles to overcome when trying to get an acceptable image from the mono raw image. This commonly comes up when doing landscapes or architectural exteriors where there is a the need to adjust tones like darkening a blue sky.

With a mono camera, if I don't have the correct color filters with me at the time of exposure, it's very difficult to adjust tones in post. The primary tool for doing that is dodging and burning. Sometimes that works just fine, but more often than not there can be unnatural artifacts -- things like tree tops and/or mountain peaks ending up looking artificially manipulated and unnaturally darkened when trying to burn in the sky, even for people with very good dodging and burning skills. OTOH, If I'm using a color camera I can very easily fine tune the b&w value of the sky in post simply by adjusting the blue channel. 'Not as much control as a good set of filters, but a very convenient and typically very satisfying alternative.

This frees me up to pack my camera bag without having to worry about carrying a bunch of filters. If I weren't so lazy, I might have gone the other route.

For anyone who is interested, all the b&w in my gallery were done with color cameras.

 

[boojum]

For a different perspective -- I chose to forego dedicated monochrome cameras in favor of just using my regular color camera and doing b&w conversions from the color dngs. I'm not denigrating mono cameras, in fact I think they are terrific under certain conditions. There are certainly advantages to using monochrome when conditions are optimum, but, often they aren't, and in those cases there can be significant limitations or hurdles to overcome when trying to get an acceptable image from the mono raw image. This commonly comes up when doing landscapes or architectural exteriors where there is a the need to adjust tones like darkening a blue sky.

With a mono camera, if I don't have the correct color filters with me at the time of exposure, it's very difficult to adjust tones in post. The primary tool for doing that is dodging and burning. Sometimes that works just fine, but more often than not there can be unnatural artifacts -- things like tree tops and/or mountain peaks ending up looking artificially manipulated and unnaturally darkened when trying to burn in the sky, even for people with very good dodging and burning skills. OTOH, If I'm using a color camera I can very easily fine tune the b&w value of the sky in post simply by adjusting the blue channel. 'Not as much control as a good set of filters, but a very convenient and typically very satisfying alternative.

This frees me up to pack my camera bag without having to worry about carrying a bunch of filters. If I weren't so lazy, I might have gone the other route.

For anyone who is interested, all the b&w in my gallery were done with color cameras.

You are the pro and I should listen. Should. But I have an old M8 that is great in mono. The M9 and M240, too, but the M8 seems a bit more authentic. I shoot both RAW and JPG but use just JPG. I am just about as lazy as a man can be without an iron lung to breathe for him so JPG is great.

I understand I can go through the RAW > mono conversion but for my amateur eyes I do not see the advantage over letting the camera do it. And, also, I am not out there competing to sell images so can be way more relaxed. Oh, wait, Pixii shoots RAW mono. It is often good. I have not shot PIxii in a long while. I'll have to find it, upgrade the software and shoot some RAW mono to see. You always find work for me. ;o)

 

[brusby]

If you're not trying to alter your tones from what the camera gives you SOOC as either JPG or raw, there's probably no advantage to be gained for you to do raw to mono conversions or change the way you're shooting or processing (if any). Camera generated jpg can be terrific looking IF you hit exposure and color balance just right. The problem with JPGs is that so much info has been thrown away to get the file size down, that those files are much less malleable than RAW. So if you do decide to change things, the results will start looking obvious and usually not so good much sooner than with a raw file.

What I'm discussing likely has the most application for people who want to alter their camera default tones in order to achieve a different artistic perception.

Think about Ansel Adams famous Half Dome photo with the drastically dark sky. You could not achieve those dark sky tones with your SOOC approach unless you used filters or changed things in post processing. Adams used a deep red filter on his b&w negative to get the sky to go so dark. That same approach would be necessary on a mono camera in order to get similar results. But with a color camera, similar effects can be achieved in post by manipulating the blue color.

Here's one where the sky was too light in person. I wanted it darker but not as dark as Adam's famous photo. If I had taken this with a mono camera and didn't have red or other sky altering filter with me at the time of exposure, I'd have a very hard time darkening the sky like this because I'd have to burn it in. It could be done here because the interface between land and sky is pretty simple. But where it is more complex, like with bigger trees and/or jagged rocks or mountain peaks, it can get drastically more difficult to burn in the sky and have it appear natural and not obvious without artifically darkening the tops of the trees or mountains or whatever is interfacing with the sky.

L1007920 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[Peter_S]

All approaches are valid, and I think after all these years of having tools available, many know what they prefer and why.
I have converted many colour images, and they turned out great. Manipulating the blue channel is, of course, equivalent to using red and yellow filters in black and white, but I often encounter artefacts when doing so in colour images. Additionally, white balance plays a role here as well. My most problematic example is the DP2 Merrill. Great tones in b/w, but try to darken the sky...
My film cameras and M Monochrom cameras had yellow and orange filters essentially glued to them, and the results were 90% there. In addition, I shot a lot in the snow, and the fine structures and shades in the snow are something b/w film and monochrome cameras seem to capture very well. A high-resolution colour camera and lens would likely do the job fine (the GR3x is pretty darn good I must say), but for what I do, I prefer compact cameras - and here, the options are limited.