Why Nikon, Canon and Fuji still don't make Monochrom Digital Cameras?

[uhoh7]

Maybe for the same reason they don't make cameras that take black and white film and not color film, ya think???

OMG, you really don't get how much rez advantage you gain with MM vs M9?

All the high astro cameras are monochrome CCDs.

Obviously, Canikon should be offering monochrome versions, since it would be so easy to keep everything else and just swap out the sensors. They would sell plenty, though of course it would be a small percentage of the color sales.

Why don't they? They don't care.

On the other hand both offer huge AF lens systems with mostly reasonable prices.

 

[pan]

Canon and Nikon are making astros-cameras. That's a niche market too.

I was thinking maybe niche-players like Fuji and Ricoh could make Monochrom digtal cameras.

A Ricoh GRII Monochrom would be really cool and I would certainly be tempted to buy one even if I'm DSLR guy.

 

[Addy101]

Obviously, Canikon should be offering monochrome versions, since it would be so easy to keep everything else and just swap out the sensors. They would sell plenty, though of course it would be a small percentage of the color sales.

Why don't they? They don't care.

If it was easy and they could sell plenty, they would care.....

 

[sevo]

All the high astro cameras are monochrome CCDs.

For entirely different reasons - for one, you often want narrow band filters there, and these don't mix well with the wide band filters in a Bayer grid. For the other, you want to maximize light sensitivity, and a Bayer grid takes off two or three stops of absolute sensitivity.

Similar reasons apply for other niche uses. At least Nikon, Canon and Olympus made or modified digital SLRs to monochrome, for industrial, medical or scientific purposes, and will sell these to anybody who he asks the right people (that is, medical/industrial support - consumer camera shops and even the consumer sales people at the manufacturer probably won't even know these exist). But expect to be several generations behind the latest and greatest consumer and pro cameras - at least by the catalogue of the biggest German hospital supplier Nikon still offered a b&w modified D100 well after the D300 was state of the art...

 

[willie_901]

Nikon and Canon have no interest whatsoever in niche market share.

That's all there is to it.

 

[FrozenInTime]

Nikon and Canon have no interest whatsoever in niche market share.

For the Astrophotography and forensic/IR markets, niche cameras like the D810A with specialized H-Alpha pass filter and X-T1 R with wide-spectrum filter exist.

 

[GaryLH]

For the Astrophotography and forensic/IR markets, niche cameras like the D810A with specialized H-Alpha pass filter and X-T1 R with wide-spectrum filter exist.

Forensic, probably enough police departments have made request to buy. So though a niche market, they know what they develop will be sold eventually vs the consumer market where it is a crap shot given the niche market.

Slightly off subject ...

The truly dedicated astrophotography sensors are very different. I have a friend who is an amateur astronomer, his eye pieces for his telescope cost more than most Leica lenses. Anyway, what he showed me was the dedicated sensor are placed in units that keep the sensor temp from causing unwanted noise due to exposure time being used. They look like the a variation of the Olympus air a1, but more like a box that attaches directly to the telescope.

Surprisingly in the end after looking at the dedicated setups, he went for a Sony a7mk2 converted to astrophotography instead..wanted a more versatile setup.

Gary

 

[willie_901]

...

All the high astro cameras are monochrome CCDs.

This statement is out of date.

http://www.open.ac.uk/science/physi...science/files/files/DPS-Studentships/SI 3.pdf

http://www.andor.com/scientific-cameras/neo-and-zyla-scmos-cameras

http://connect.physicsworld.com/categories/imaging/cmos-cameras/201041.category

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=48569

 

[Hsg]

It's a mystery why Nikon, Canon and Fuji still don't make Monochrom Digital Cameras?

Perhaps they feel that if you really want great B&W images then you should invest in b&w film.

 

[Mephiloco]

I think most people would see a digital black and white camera and respond with "that's stupid". The differences between converting and shooting b&w natively are minimal compared to what they were.

Also, if Canon/Nikon made a b&w camera they could afford to lose money on it and kill the other competitors. A B&W Canon 6D at around $2000 would take a lot of the M Monochrome sales, or more likely, potential sales.

That being said, Cypress makes a really nice monochrome/infrared sensor.

 

[13Promet]

Besides the small niche market, high ISO and resolution performance of the latest FF sensors are already so high that the benefit of a monochrom version would be negligible in ordinary use.
Moreover, lacking the possiiliy of PP colour filtration before converting to BW, which can be handy.

Think of a Monochrome Nikon D5: 6 or 10 millions ISO... what for?

 

[furcafe]

I believe the M 246 is the current Monochrom.

Having recently picked up the 246, I would say the difference between its files v. 240 files converted to B&W is more than minimal. Perhaps not as significant as the difference between M9 & original Monochrom files (don't have any personal experience there), but still an easily noticeable difference. On ISO alone, the 246 is at least 2 stops faster than the 240. If your point is that the high ISO capabilities on the current Nikons, Sonys, & Canons make a mono option less compelling on that criterion, I would agree; I have a friend who routinely converts (much larger) A7RII files to B&W & they do resemble 246 files.

I'm not sure how "successful" the 246 is compared to the cult-like status of the original Monochrom. I would have to agree w/others in this thread that the market is miniscule for companies like Canon, etc., though I suspect Fuji might be able to get away w/making a monochrome-only "Acros" body.

The difference between shooting the M9 black and white and the Ur MM is quite significant.

On a modern CMOS sensor, like in 240 vs 262, the difference is minimal.

In other words, there wouldn't be a technical benefit to converting a modern Nikon, Canon or Fuji to B+W only. The 262 is mostly successful due to Leica marketing.

Roland.

 

[olakiril]

Think of a Monochrome Nikon D5: 6 or 10 millions ISO... what for?

I hear this argument quite frequently. Its not (so much) about shooting under the moonlight but to be able to have large DoF and fast shutter speeds at not so bright conditions.

 

[13Promet]

I hear this argument quite frequently. Its not (so much) about shooting under the moonlight but to be able to have large DoF and fast shutter speeds at not so bright conditions.

Of course, but a B/W camera for shooting action in the dark with large DoF is even a much smaller niche of an already tiny niche.
Moreover, isn't 3+ MLN ISO already enough for that?

 

[pan]

Probably for the same reason(s) that digital camera sales are tanking 🙂

I agree...

Cameras after cameras, Canon and Nikon improve their technologies but where is the fun, the change?

It seems that they don't want to go out of their paradigm.

Do they really want to do something "out of the box"?

In the nineties, Nissan industrialized a concept car, just for fun , the Figaro. It was completely out of the box.

Why not today the same achievement in the concept for a camera?

 

[olakiril]

Of course, but a B/W camera for shooting action in the dark with large DoF is even a much smaller niche of an already tiny niche.
Moreover, isn't 3+ MLN ISO already enough for that?

No doubt it is a niche market. But there not enough cameras that even capture that.

For example I would like a X100x style B&W camera that is 1-2 stops better at low light. I would pay more than the current X100x prices and I am sure other people would want such a camera too.

Eventually camera companies will have to diversify and occupy every niche possible, if they want to survive in a dying "Quality is good enough on any current camera" market.

 

[13Promet]

No doubt it is a niche market. But there not enough cameras that even capture that.

For example I would like a X100x style B&W camera that is 1-2 stops better at low light. I would pay more than the current X100x prices and I am sure other people would want such a camera too.

Eventually camera companies will have to diversify and occupy every niche possible, if they want to survive in a dying "Quality is good enough on any current camera" market.

I own and use an X-E2, same sensor as the 100x: what I really miss for low light is more capable AF and/or EVF rather than better high ISO. But YMMV, of course.
Anyway, I agree that - at this exact stage - a monochrom sensor would make sense in smaller formats like APS-C and m4/3. Much less in FF for the reasons stated before.
But in a few years, when the X100whatever will get the same sensitivity of the current D5 or better, it will be useless as well.
I fully agree that niches will be large part of future photography, I'm just not sure monochrome to be one of them.

 

[GaryLH]

I think most people would see a digital black and white camera and respond with "that's stupid". The differences between converting and shooting b&w natively are minimal compared to what they were.

Also, if Canon/Nikon made a b&w camera they could afford to lose money on it and kill the other competitors. A B&W Canon 6D at around $2000 would take a lot of the M Monochrome sales, or more likely, potential sales.

That being said, Cypress makes a really nice monochrome/infrared sensor.

Agreed that most people would c a dedicated b&w as stupid. But the difference IMHO is not minor. Each pixel in a monochrome sensor need not interpret a Bayer color point which not only can lead to a possible false,color,at that point but even w/o an aa array, can lead to either aliasing or a fuzzy representation of that point. A monochrome sensor only has to interpret one thing the intensity of the light at that one pixel. Thus u will c more detail.

As Bayer sensor go up in mp (36 mp and above sensors), the advantage of a monochrome sensor appears to start to disappear to the point IMHO only a pixel peeper would care. But on the other side of that ledger, the cost of lenses goes up in order to support the better resolving quality of that said sensor. The personal computer horsepower and storage requirements also go up in order to process those big files.

Gary

 

[ferider]

I believe the M 246 is the current Monochrom. Having recently picked up the 246, I would say the difference between its files v. 240 files converted to B&W is more than minimal. Perhaps not as significant as the difference between M9 & original Monochrom files (don't have any personal experience there), but still an easily noticeable difference. On ISO alone, the 246 is at least 2 stops faster than the 240.

Yes, I meant 246 of course, thanks.

I don't own one and can only judge by published tests - which compared to your personal experience is limiting of course. Anyways, the tests I read document 1 bit/stop more sensitivity, and 2 bits/stops less dynamic range (246 vs. 240).

If your point is that the high ISO capabilities on the current Nikons, Sonys, & Canons make a mono option less compelling on that criterion, I would agree; I have a friend who routinely converts (much larger) A7RII files to B&W & they do resemble 246 files.

Exactly.