I am looking at it from a Leica monochrom perspective as a reference point.. It is potentially better than the Leica. Whether it is or not in reality, it is my ultimate monochrom camera because I have made a decision long ago that in the world of digital, I am never going to pay more than around 1800 for a camera body. The most so far was the either the sigma sd1 or Fuji xp1.
First let's look at the Leica monochrom, the only camera that has ever been a pure monochrom, no Bayer array and no anti-aliasing required. It has a 18mp sensor. Each pixel location can record 256 (0-255 values, 8 bits per photosite) for the tonal quality. Just as in the days of film though, to get certain effects, it needs a b&w filter like a for example yellow to help accent or bring out certain objects to the forefront.
Enter the foveon Merrill sensor, no Bayer array and no anti-aliasing (equal to Leica monochrom here). In monochrom mode, we are talking 15mp of real info as opposed 18 of the Leica. The potential tonal information is actually available from 8 bits each of RGB color channel info at each photosite w/ luminousity still limited by 8 bits I think (top blue layer channel). No need for using a b&w filter, the effect could be done post processing w/ spp by using color wheel.
Enter the Quattro, top layer is 20mp.. So as a monochrom camera, could resolve better than the Leica at 18mp. Potentially better vs outright better has to do w/ the true tonal range.. At worst equal (straight 8 bits of the blue layer), but when taking into account what was lost from the Merrill. This really has to do w/ the effect of the total tonal quality in terms of subtle shading difference over a given stance since now the other channels are 5 mp worth if photo sites each. Here it is a step down from the Merrill.. 18mp vs 20 mp (Leica vs Quattro) not enough difference to worry about, but 20 vs 15 million photo sites (Quattro vs Merrill) one should c some differences in detail.
Gary
