The FF B&W sensor description by Leica.
Sony is once more challenging Leica! According to one source Sony is developing a new Full Frame Black and White sensor for a camera to be launched within one year! This will be the second FF camera after the $8,000 Leica Monochrom (here at Amazon). On paper the advantages of such a sensor are amazing:
– Greater sharpness
– Cleaner Higher ISO results
– Increased Dynamic range
I don’t have any info about the sensor specs yet so we have to read some Leica Monochrom tests to learn how good a B&W sensor works:
Luminous Landscape reports that “the technology is not without ot flaws. Among these is that since the luminance information is only being sampled from the green cells, there is actually less resolution available than one might think. About 2/3rds in fact.”
Two great reviews and nice image samples can be read/seen at Thorsten Overgaard and Ming Thein.
Now you tell me…
[poll id=”171″]
—
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
—
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
0 Responses
seem like such a niche product, I rather see Sony work on a medium format camera than this
I think medium format is even more niche, plus they’d have to come out with an entirely new, and more expensive, line of lenses. I think the way things are going, Sony is trying to achieve medium format quality in FF sensors. But still, it would be cool to have a medium format, if the price were right.
I like the idea of this B&W sensor and look forward to seeing the product, which I’d guess will be an RX1-type camera.
What People would say to…
.. medium Format camera: WOW!!! Sony is great! they can build huge sensors!!!
.. b&w camera: Sony is stupid… they build b&w cameras like 50 years ago.. are they sleeping?
Sony is a high tech Company. they look into the future and give us things like evf. It would be negative for them to build such a b&w camera. Leica can do that – cause they are known for a “oldschool” camera. They are “cool” for their rudimentary things and this is their Image. A more rudimentary camera is positive for them. No mirror, no af, no Colors…
That says more about the “people” than it does Sony ;~).
Am I the only one to think that this sensor is probably being made for Hasselblad?
Unless I’ve dreamt it, wasn’t there Sony-Hasselblad camera rumored a while back? If that’s the case, then it makes sense why Sony would design such a sensor.
Otherwise yes, I completely agree, it’d be pointless in any camera, except RX1 equivalent B&W camera.
they don’t need to design whole system, just a digital back. these days it’s pretty much only these three:
– Hasselblad with their CFVs (Kodak sensors AFAIK)
– Phase One with IQ/IQ2 series (Dalsa sensors)
– Leaf with Credo series (Dalsa sensors)
Agree. 6×6 50MP back which uses SD cards and works seamlessly with V-series Hasselblads… for <= $3 K.
Hope I live long enough to see it.
If Sd compatibility is so important to you because you can’t afford to buy new memory cards, how much are you willing to pay for such a back? $1500? 😀
I would consider a black and white RX1.
I rather they work on their lenses for nex cameras… mostly are crap…
Which particular lens are you talking about? The 16mm pancake? Any other “crap” lens? I don’t know one
SEL1650PZ, SEL1855. These two are pretty much the only reason i still dont have a NEX3 or a NEX5 and going for RX100 instead as my light weight camera
If you’re such a kit zoom connoisseur, you haven’t learned how to use an interchangeable lens camera. You might as well shoot what you shoot now… which btw is what, if I may ask?
No need to go on the offensive. I did say that I need a lightweight camera, which in itself means a travel option or something small to always keep with me…
I have an A65 with Sony SAL1650, Tamron 70-300 USD, Sony SAL35F18, Minolta Rokkor 58 1.4 with mount converted to Sony A-Mount, and i’m thinking of an 85/2 or 85/1.4 lens to supplement my kit. Nissin Di866 MkII flash for indoors bounce-flash photography.
Not everyone here is crazy on primes. People have their reasons for going with zoom lenses. Maybe next time you should be more relaxed with your replies.
The issue with the current A7 and a7R is that they don’t work so well with non-Sony M mount lenses.
All the reviewers of these cameras – Kai, Steve-Huff, Luminious landscape try and end up reporting the same thing.
I’d much prefer to see Sony to focus on this as a larger niche .
Oh really? From Steve Huff I read that he loves using the A7 with Leica and Voigtlander lenses from 35mm, even some wide angles. Only some very wide angles and the Zeiss Biogon designed for film don’t work. Hard to blame Sony here and I rather see them making the best sensor for the FE Zeiss lenses. Maybe future organic sensors will handle it better though.
Ah – but Steve Huff sees ghosts as well….
Here’s a bit of an analogy… A guy who home delivers expensive cars from the factory can talk all he likes about those cars with his buddies but by no means his job makes him a race driver.
I love using my Canon DSLR lenses on the A7R. Everything works just as well as they on Canons:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/11711166705/
So your comment is very misinformed. Coincidentally you are also a reader of Steve Huff… 🙂
They’re just lenses man – Canon or Leica and increasing choice is a good thing unless you’re a zealot. No need to get defensive, post your portfolio, and start theorizing about race car drivers (whatever that means..)
Just trying to educate you, John. Don’t get so defensive about it… relax and open your mind.
good luck.
The richness of mono for me is often how you can take the colour data and make selective decisions per colour on how that is converted to mono.
If it will only capture luminance from the green cells, it seems that all those options would be gone and you’d be stuck with using the green channel as your only rendering.
Exactly my opinion. Color RAW to B&W tif is best way.
Andrea misunderstood the LL quote, since that “flaw” was specifically related to Bayer sensors, not monochrome sensors. Monochrome sensors capture luminance information with every pixel.
Yes, Andrea misinterpreted this – easy to understand given the nuances of a foreign language. On a true B&W sensor, there is no color filter array like the Bayer array or the X-trans array and therefore monochrome luminance information is captured at every pixel and every pixel is an accurate representation of what the sensor recorded where on a Bayer array, every pixel is an interpolation of colors from it’s nearest neighbors with luminance information from the extra green pixel (in the case of a Bayer array)
Interesting observation. I don’t know the science behind sensor tech but seems logical to me. One thing is for sure though in the point you bring up, is that working with the various color channels or even the color sliders as used in LIghtroom for example, gives me so much control and makes it easy to more or less pinpoint areas of the image I would like to affect. These tools makes working with BW images so much fun and allows so much freedom since you’re only concentrating on tone and not how those altered colors would also appear next to one another.
This camera idea definitely has me interested but at the same time, I doubt I would ever buy it unless I seriously had a ton of cash laying around since buying any lens to fill out my collection would always be top priority over new cameras or accessories.
You pay for that “color adjusting” capability with a lot of minuses: lower resolution, lower acuity, moire/artifacts, noise.
A true B&W sensor will be two or more stops faster than a comparable Bayer sensor (no filtration), have higher dynamic range, higher resolution, higher acuity, and fewer artifacts in the underlying data. If you’re trying to emulate Ansel Adams, those are all “good things” ;~).
You can always do what we did with film–use filters on the front of the lens–if you want to move the monochrome spectral response. That would lose you some of the dynamic range, but not the other things.
Basically, you’re arguing for convenience over capability. Nothing wrong with that, but some of us actually do prefer capability over convenience for the work we do.
I should note also that generally Bayer sensors have a problem a lot of folk don’t know about: because the filtration is laid down line by line over the photosite, most sensors have a G response next to the R photosites that’s a tiny bit different than the G response next to the B photosites. Because of the way demosaic routines work, this often is masked, but it’s another form of noise.
I really don’t know which sensors you’re talking about Tom, but when I shoot with ~1000nm pass filters on my converted cameras (1xCanon and 2xSony) a straight view of the raw mosaic doesn’t show odd/even green sites appearing darker.
If you’re going to say that it’s because the raw files are cooked before written then you should still see a difference when shooting wavelengths like 1000nm because even blue and red produce the same response as the rest and any overcompensation should show.
I’m not saying what you’re saying is untrue for all cameras… but can’t see how it’s true for all cameras either. Care to elaborate?
*Thom
Sorry.
i would buy it if its sub 1000, which is not going to happen
BW cameras are often used for security cameras and nite work.
The sensor would have some uses.
It would not be usefull for most photographers unless used as a second camera or if the camera had two sensorsbw and color.
Yep, same here. Give me sub-1000 camera and I just might buy it. It’s too niche use to invest anything more than that.
There’s another benefit, better corner performance due to less layers on top of the sensor.
Not sure about higher sharpness, at least on edges. Because there is an evidence it is IR filter that is responsible for edge smearing. Just take a look at how sharp VL 12/5.6 on edges with A7r and removed IR filter: http://genotypewritings.blogspot.ru/2013/12/sony-a7r-full-spectrum-conversion.html
For a long time now (over 10 years) I’ve pointed out that the sensor actually acts as its own “optical system.” You have (generally), three layers of filtration and two air/glass transitions in the filter that sits over the sensor (horizontal and vertical displacement for AA impact, and UVIR filtration), you then go through microlenses which attempt to make the light telecentric to the sensel, then it goes through the Bayer filtration. The microlens/Bayer layers act like another air/glass transition, so there’s more refraction going on. But that’s not all. In some designs you either have BSI (high fill factor) or tunnel walls that the light then goes to. All of this mix can be millimeters thick. So where is the focus plane, which by definition is infinitely thin?
And we haven’t even gotten to the difference that the spectrum of light makes to how it goes through that back end optical system. The math gets extremely complex.
In theory, you could build a monochrome system slightly differently. It doesn’t need AA, for example. Thus, even if you use a filter over the sensor you can use a thinner one. But I believe you could actually add UVIR to the microlenses if you were clever. Personally, those of us experimenting with removing the microlens/Bayer filtration on our sensors to get a monochrome response tend to also remove the AA/UVIR filter. The accutance of these systems is extremely high compared to Bayer systems.
The trick to obtaining normal-spectrum performance will be to homebrew and substitute the low pass filter elements and IR filter, with a much thinner IR absorption filter (0.2-0.4mm).
Because the total-thickness of the fitler is reduced – orthogonal and incident rays will then converge at the same point in the corners. (technically – no astigmatism and field curvature)
That’s what modern cell-phones are doing to achieve compactness and what Leica does.
Yeah I also sort of noticed it but haven’t put my finger on it properly. Although the IR filter is removed it’s replaced with a clear filter. So it’s not like it’s not there but the stock IR filter is a sandwiched piece of glass with a IR cut filter and a plain glass filter (for added thickness) likely to maintain backwards compatibility with older E mount lenses. So there is a chance of the stock filter making things worse when light goes through it at angles.
Please get the conversion service to remove the optical blank and then report back the results with the Voigt wide angle and even the Canons. There’s no need for it, since contrast and on-sensor PDAF doesn’t need to keep the same optical-path-length in order to maintain accurate focus like a dslr would.
Even on dslrs with a separate pdaf sensor the cut filter sits immediately above the sensor. I.e. it has nothing to do with pdaf. The glass filter is also there to protect the sensor because a bare sensor is very fragile and you can damage the microlenses when trying to clean it directly.
Also the glass filter is a part of the optical formula. It needs to conform to a certain spec. For example if it’s not there lenses won’t be able to focus to infinity (more relevant to wides than long lenses) and if it’s too thick it’ll focus beyond infinity (not that big a problem but the quality of the glass will affect the image quality more.
Do you know anything about what you’re talking about, John or are you just trolling?
I would love a high resolution, high dynamic range B&W camera, especially if the sensor spectral sensitivity range was also wide.
It sounds like a very interesting capability for those who need it. Would it be possible to have both sensors (color and B&W)in the same camera body using a reflex mirror to reflect the light onto the sensor that is selected.
You misquoted Luminous Landscape, he was talking about the color sensor with Bayer filter (i.e. a normal color DSLR) when referring to the green pixels only being used for luminance.
A black and white sensor has NO Bayer filter (and usually no anti-aliasing filter), so the ENTIRE surface of the sensor can collect photons from the entire visible spectrum (or more precisely the entire spectrum that silicon is sensitive to, depending on whether IR/UV is allowed through or not). A black and white photograph with a black and white sensor will ALWAYS be superior to the same sensor with a Bayer filter.
Exactly!!!!
“entire surface”
Not exactly. It might if the sensor were BSI. But traditional large sensors don’t have a 100% fill factor. There are power and electrical connections at the surface and they often use tunnel walls to confine the light into one sensel. Thus, you might end up with only 70 or 80% of the surface actually responsive to light. Given the large photosite size of the large sensors, that’s okay. You don’t get as much bang for the buck by using BSI on really large sensors as you do with really small ones.
This is why they place microlens arrays over the whole surface. This compensates for the fill factor in modern sensors for the most part.
I guess Foveon X3 shooting in B & W and then resize to 24MP might out performance Leica or the future one from Sony
If the sensor sizes are the same they should be comparable, depending on how the Foveon converts their image to b&w. Both sensors would have no Bayer filter so the entire sensor would be used to produce the image. Which would be better would also depend on how sensitive the Foveon sensor is compared to the b&w sensor from other brands because the Foveon has three layers, which may cause a bit of inefficiency as compared to the single layer of a normal b&w cmos sensor (i.e. that used in the Leica and likely in the Sony).
No. Much less luminance information (15 MP worth of luminance information at best. filter.
The benefits of Foveon are in the opposite area: capturing more *colour* information.
The Sigma cameras have a special mode in the raw-to-TIFF conversion software for monochrome output. It can use only the top layer, or use data from all three. (The top layer is not only sensitive to blue.)
Results that I have seen posted are very good. Hard to compare directly with the Leica MM, but similar quality. Higher ISO settings can be used than for colour output. Basically you get a true 16 Megapixels, not the might-be-more-might-be-less that you get from Bayer.
If the Sony camera is like an A7 and has plenty of pixels, then with a top class macro lens it would be ideal for digitising monochrome film.
I know and like I said, little over 15MP worth of luminance information max, vs 24-36 MP worth of luminance information at best for a camera suggested in this topic (based on current sensors).
If it’s not too expensive, I’m in. Sounds interesting.
Wouldn’t it be awesome if the two techniques were combined in a sensor that could turn off the color filter? Take one sensor scan with the filter and one without. Use the first stream for color info and the second for lightness and it would give us all the advantages of the B&W sensor but with color.
Ah, the silly impossible daydreams I have … 😛
Not exactly, for what you say to be true you would have to take 4 scans – one for luminance, one for red, one for green, and one for blue. If you took a sacn for luminance and then a Bayer scan, you would still be interpolating the color information at every pixel site but have luminance information for every pixel so in a way it would be a hybrid and give you some benefits on the luminance side but no benefits on the color side.
I would buy depending on the price. But considering it would not come for less than 1500€ then most probably NOT.
Oh look, another camera from Sony that won’t sell.
I would love one as would other photographers I know who prefer B/W over colour, just call us old school. The Leica Mono is to expensive for me, and if done correctly a Sony Mono camera could replace my 5×4 camera.
So Andrea will it be E-mount or A mount?
Likewise – depends on format and price. If it’s a mid range apsc e-mount I’m probably in, but I wouldn’t pay a7 money. I’d also consider an ff rx with a 50mm (or apsc/35mm). Can’t see it replacing my primary body though…
I doubt this rumors as well, but suspect the camera would do ok, since if high resolution, landscape/architecture/still life photographers might consider using it as three-shot with RGB filters. Consider the results at 36MP – would be remarkable.
No color filter means:
* ~3x more light on each pixel (1.58 EV). Everybody complains about the 0.5 EV of loss of the SLT mirror, but nobody complains about the 1.6 EV of loss of the bayer filter…
* no need for a low pass filter. The low pass filter is there only because of the bayer matrix.
and of course:
* no color, but color is quite overrated 😛
Much more than 3x the SNR – 6x easy, as the sum or the typical RGB filters do not produce a “100% full visible” band.
Mosaics can happen on B&W sensors, too.
This sensor could incorporate a rotating 4 color wheel..r,g,b, and none.
Ok. This is cool. Better to do it than NOT to do it – and the tweaks required aren’t a huge deal. Good for Sony, if they do this.
I wonder if this will be A7 form factor… and if it may alleviate some of the corner/edge issues due to less glass for the light to pass through?
OH— and Admin… when do we get the 36MP APS-C camera? (It’s not yet been asked in this thread)
This can’t be true. Doesn’t take a genius to know this is a money pit with no return. C’mon. We want to hear more about the new Alpha specs…not some made up rumour about a patent.
We??? sounds more like you want admin to only post rumors that YOU care about, to hell with anyone else.
That’s right, because EVERYONE want’s to hear about a B&W sensor. If Sony wanted to compete against Leica or whoever then they should be doing something DIFFERENT. Why match them when you can outperform in a different category? Sony has proven that with SLT and the NEX/A7…and they have even admitted this in interviews – that they want to gain control in unchartered territories. Don’t be a fool. You don’t know that you want. Sony does.
Yes, more fallacies needed in this forum.
The amaze demosaicing algorithm gets nearly the native sharpness, so this seems rather an Marketing gag for People who dont own/use proper RAW-Converting Software and so lack in sharpness.
But anyway, nobody is forced to buy it.
Something seems wrong with the green cell only logic. If that were true, contrast filters would not work well , as they are color filters to build B&W contrast in the pan-chromatic b&w film / sensor image.
Also I thought it was stated in the Leica information that the sensor cells were clear and thus captured more light since they had no filter.
The quote was taken out of context. Admin was wrong. He was talking about the disadavantage of using color filter arrays, not monochrome sensors.
If the price was below 1000, as someone already mentioned, I totally see it. Such a rich dynamic range could produce amazing results, like an iso25 b/w specialty film does. It is a niche product, though.
Ya, I can see that now. Come out with a niche product under 1K and sell it as a companion camera that people can whip out as a “toy” camera for particular settings. If someone is truly a diehard BW enthusiast, Leica is always there as an option. But as someone else mentioned in the comments already and I agree, since Leica has an image of getting back to the basics of photography, it’s only natural to offer a BW only version of their digital cameras. Sony is marketed as a leader in innovation, not just in their camera division, but in their electronics as well. Perhaps this is partly why even the so called semi-retro design of the a7 is still a very modern looking camera, though classic in shape. So long story short, if Sony were to come out with this camera, it would make sense to me for them to market this as a fun thing to carry around like for snapshots or casual shooting, and to keep it at a price level to fit this purpose.
Surprisingly DR (dynamic range) would be slightly LOWER, not higher with a B&W sensor. DR is limited by the full well capacity and read noise which both are the same regardless of filters, but with a colour filter array one can reconstruct some lost data in the raw-conversion as the colour channels blow at different times.
Bayer CFA loses very little resolution with today’s demosaicing algorighms. What loses more is the AA-filter, though even B&W sensor should have one to prevent aliasing, although in practise this would likely be omitted.
Price of such a camera would be high as is always the case for limited production items – volumes bring costs down and small volumes increae them. In the very unlikely case Sony would made such a camera, the price would likely be 3 grand if not more.
Yeah you won’t notice a difference when the optics and user technique are not up to it. Otherwise it’s ridiculous to think that Bayer CFA sensors come close to what a non-filtered sensor can do. Which monochrome sensors have you used?
Sony wants to make an extremely niche B&W camera, but after all these years they couldn’t make a full selection of lenses (compare to M43 for example) for NEX?
This is why I am so frustrated by Sony. They make amazing cameras, but before following through with completing the camera system, they get o
This is great news! I am about to sell my Leica MM (wonderful camera but not worth dealing with boutique shops) after starting to use the fabulous A7R.
Any pre-order links, Admin? 🙂
Development of a sensor is a LONG way from pre-orders for a completely unspecified camera that may never ever appear. that sensor development could be for many reasons not related to a consumer or pro camera.
That is why he added the smile, I guess.
Ah!!! Missed that 😮
RX1 looks like the most appropriate camera for this monochrome business
Yeah, that is what I was thinking too. I am hoping for interchangable, though.
Or A7 so that you have the availability of different focal lengths. I guess I could see an RX1M and an A7M as niche products without too much additional development beyond the sensor.
That would make most sense.
The key to keeping it inexpensive is to keep it basic. No Video, optical VF, basic exposure modes maybe just Manual and Aperture Priority. (maybe even manual focus only) Just copy a Leica M3 and swap out the film for a sensor… get the idea? I think that this “basic” or minimalist approach would appeal to most users who are willing to buy a monochrome only camera. Don’t compete with other cameras or you will be compared (apples with elephants). Need to standout and go in an entirely different direction. (BTW I don’t disagree with it being in RX1 form if that helps keep the cost down).
I agree. It’s a pretty niche product and I can see a place for one that is small, basic, and inexpensive… or alternately one that is *better* than the Leica. But I don’t see any room/demand in the ‘middle ground’.
Leica doesn’t even make the product available with their latest technology. They basically recycled the old M9 with its sensor, with cosmetic and menu adjustments.
It isn’t just that the Monochrom has a crazy price tag. It’s the most expensive camera, and it’s really outdated tech at the same time. If Sony makes a monochrome camera with their latest sensor tech, it would be totally awesome*. And of course they will charge a lot more for the privilege unless they would want to make a point instead of a profit. (Oh please let that be true!)
*Awesomer would be finding a way to squeeze in internal filters. Dynamically remove IR/UV cut filter, for example, or replace it with 720nm internal filter.
I dont know the specifics but the FS700R has an implementation of removable sensor filters. It is also E Mount so it might be possible
There’s only one BW camera in existence to be compared to and it costs a ridiculous amount of money.
There is one B&W still consumer camera available, there are lots of B&W cameras around, mostly as sensor only with C-mount lenses and live feeds to computers. We use a bunch at work.
I could see Sony building a B&W camera for commercial/industrial uses, in the consumer space it is very much a niche camera. The advantage over a normal color camera is small, but present.
Uhmm, ok. I was addressing the following though: “Don’t compete with other cameras or you will be compared (…) Need to standout and go in an entirely different direction”.
Sony is also heavily invested in the CCTV/security/industrial imaging markets so it is likely that even if this sensor is in development there are no intentions of bringing it to consumers. Now IF it is a standard prosumer size (1″, APS-C, FF) then maybe Sony will do a one-off camera like a A7M or RX1M since it wouldn’t take that much additional development to swap it out for a similarly spec’ed Bayer-type sensor. I think an A7M or NEX-7M (A7000M ?) would sell fairly well as Leica has demonstrated there is a dedicated niche for B/W only cameras. I don’t think they’d be under $1k though.
People make it sound like a niche market is a bad idea.
Red EPIC-M or something else
Not following here.
Next: The infrared camera, followed by the ultraviolet camera, and the X-rays camera
I’m inclined to the view that this is a niche product, and that giving up the ability to retrospectively “filter” the output by
However, it would hardly be a difficult or expensive product for Sony to produce as mostly it will be simply a matter of removing the bayer filter (or making it clear) and adjusting the firmware to suit.
To show how relatively easy this would be for a manufacturer, then consider that several people have performed there own DIY conversions by physically scraping the filter layer off the sensor. Even though what was produced was far from perfect (among other things, this action scrapes off the microlenses too), amazingly people have produced working results. Imagine just how much easier it would be for a sensor manufacturer to just make the bayer layer transparent.
http://petapixel.com/2013/08/04/scratching-the-color-filter-array-layer-off-a-dslr-sensor-for-sharper-bw-photos/
oops – that first sentence should have had “by colour channel would be lost” at the end.
Cheap to develop, expensive to manufacture because there will be much lower demand for a b&w camera. This is why there would be reluctance for any manufacturer to produce an actual camera as it’s extremely risky from a cost perspective.
What’s so expensive to manufacture if they simply use one of their existing cameras? Hardly extremely risky.
These sensors are fabricated much the same way as computer processors on wafers. If you have a wafer fab set up to make one thing (a given color sensor with Bayer filter) you would have to stop the fab and change how the the wafer is manufactured so that no Bayer filter is applied. This is a time consuming process and fairly expensive process, and you also aren’t manufacturing your color sensors during this time. So there are lost production, fab setup, testing, labor, and time costs.
The only significant cost I see is the retooling itself (depending on how important it is) and the time spent for it. Lost production means nothing the way you put it. Labor costs should be the same as for color sensors (if not less) and given that you are basically taking one step out of the process it should be faster. On top of that, the sensor is the only piece of the camera that changes, everything else stays the same. You are not convincing me.
You don’t need to remove the Bayer sensor. Just leave out the filter dyes so it’s transparent. You can guarantee that they are already geared to support different filtration densities for their various customers to customise versions of the sensor.
If they do go through with making a monochrome camera I hope it’s in an E-mount body. As others have said, using an existing body like the A7 or even an NEX-6/7 could keep development costs down, and having interchangeable lenses would make it much more flexible and useful (and less expensive if you already have lenses).
It would cost Sony next to nothing to produce such a camera. All they need is to remove the bayer filter on one of their current bodies (which I hope is the A7r) and then tweak the processing software slightly. This should produce a body with about twice the actual resolution, better corner performance with adapted lens, and about 1.5x better high iso performance. Actual benefit may be even greater, since removal of the bayer layer totally prevents the occurrence of color noise. In my experience with the MM and M9 this adds an extra 1-1.5 stops of “perceived” high iso performance.
All in all a great body. I would buy one even it is more expensive than the original color body. Most of my personal work is in B&W anyways, and there is always the option to go back to color filters for tonal adjustments.
Since you put it that way, I’m interested.
It will be more expensive than a color body, just due to the niche it is in. It will require special sensor runs, which will be more expensive, require a special manufacturing run, will require development of the firmware the cost of which is spread over less cameras, etc. It could be cheaper if the put it on a camera with no bells and whistles, so the body itself was much cheaper to manufacture, but I think it would end up on a A7 type body. For Leica it adds 15% to the cost, if Sony could keep it at that percent increase it should do well, if they need to raise the price $1000 it is still much cheaper than the Leica.
Sensor runs will be marginally more expensive, if at all. Can you link to those 15% of added cost for the Leica (I couldn’t find anything)?
That’s the markup Leica applied to the base camera, one could argue that its based of the 220 which makes the markup around 25%. The cost of doing this is not that great, the problem is the volumes are quite small. IIRC Leica was selling 10 thousand per year, they had forecast 3500, so generally a very successful low volume product.
I’ve been thinking of getting one from Leica … but cost is a little to far. A Sony FF would be nice at 2k+. But even a Fuji x100 bw with a 35/40/50mm lens would be very interesting.
Top of my head prices for Leica FF, $7000 for the normal ones and $8000 for the B&W, might have the prices off a little. As a percent not a big increase, would end up being a $250 increase on the Sony bodies. I am going by vague memories here, but that seems inline with what special IR versions of camera cost extra.
If the monochrome is based on the M-E, which I think it is as they have similar sensor specs then the mark up is a bit higher, $5450 to $7950, or 46%, that would bump a A7r from $2298 to $3352. Of course numbers of cameras sold is much different between Sony and Leica so that is going to effect pricing a lot.
But these are prices, not productions costs. I seriously doubt that their prices reflect productions costs like that (my guess is that the bigger part of that bump in price is simply profits for them and has nothing to see with costs). For example, why isn’t the RX1r not more expensive than the RX1? Surely, according to your logic, there should be at least some price difference. Don’t get me wrong, I am hardly an expert in sensor manufacturing, but I simply do not believe it will be significantly costlier for Sony to introduce something like that 🙂
You can use traditional filters as for B&W film, or you could easily attach an RGB filter wheel for sequential exposures of still subjects such as artwork or ceramics.
You could also make several exposures with narrow-band filters to get a more accurate record of the colour of paintings or flowers. That could include near IR and UV if they are allowed to reach the sensor.
I would buy it in a instant. I do all my work in B&W – this would fit like a glove.
This sensor might be in production already planned for scientific and law enforcement use. This is a way to reduce cost by scaling up to the mass market.
Sony wants Leica.
WOW! This thread is filled with “don’t like what I don’t like”
It is highly doubtful that significant resources are being diverted from everyone’s beloved projects to release a limited run of B/W cameras.
Why not commercialize the tinkering that their sensor R&D group does as they play with new things?
Depending on price, IQ delivered, lens mount/fixed lens, I will buy it or not.
This is fantastic news! I would absolutely buy this camera, preferably E-mount.
It would have to be E mount to be useful. People who buy such a camera will want to attach all kinds of optics to it.
Are you sure? Given what’s happened with a7(r), I don’t want it. Old lenses works nicely on their original mount camera bodies.
I was hoping (dreaming like a child) that a7 could be the “universal system” and it’s far from being it, at least to me (personal opinion based on personal needs, so please don’t take this as trolling 😉 )
Instead of getting frustrated by “poor” performances of M mount lenses on a brand new modern Sony camera, I prefer that big S will show us a fixed lens camera à la RX1r. Let it be the same 35mm Zeiss f2. Why? Because it would be the perfect (well, I prefer 50mm focal lenght) street machine, b&w to make the photo timeless. And because no M mount lens matches that f2 Zeiss coupled with the sensor.
Knowing that Sony likes to “experiment”, I would not be surprised if they come out with something like this.
What worries is always the price though.
Make the camera medium format, have it fit Mamiya 7 lenses, and later introduce a color version of it.
I don’t see this as a better an idea than ignoring a-mount
what a waste of resources !!
Quote:
Luminous Landscape reports that “the technology is not without ot flaws. Among these is that since the luminance information is only being sampled from the green cells, there is actually less resolution available than one might think. About 2/3rds in fact.”
End Quote
That article is so full of miss information that it is ridiculous.
To claim that only luminance information is only being sampled by the green cells is such rubbish. Luminous Landscape articles are a joke.
Price dependent, I would be very interested in a Black and White only camera from Sony.
This is a camera I definitely would want. The Leica monochrom unfortunately is a little bit to expensive for me. (But just a little bit) 😉
I shoot mostly in b/w and this camera would be perfect. 🙂
There are very few of the really good B&W photos I have seen, where I have not thought to myself.. this would have looked even better with some color.
May I ask if a B&W sensor will deliver the same file size as a bayer color sensor with the equal pixel count?
The RAW file will be essentially the same size as that for an RGB sensor as it’s basically just an array of values (assuming that the bit depth is the same). Of course, Sony apply a compression algorithm to the data, and you also have to assume that will be unchanged.
Luminous Landscape reports that “the technology is not without ot flaws. Among these is that since the luminance information is only being sampled from the green cells, there is actually less resolution available than one might think. About 2/3rds in fact.”
End Quote
That article is so full of miss information that it is ridiculous.
To claim that only luminance information is only being sampled by the green cells is such rubbish. Luminous Landscape articles are a joke.
I have always hoped for a NEX 3 a like BW camera. Because it then addresses the concerns I see in the comments here that it be small like an RX1 and cheap like the NEX 3N. Then it can be either a primary or secondary camera.
Usually with these niche FF cameras Sony uses Nikon’s size to help with numbers like the D600 and the RX1 or the D800 and the A7R. But Nikon already has released the camera that would be this one’s twin, the DF. I don’t see Nikon releasing a BW camera so maybe this sensor will not be used for a consumer camera.
Yeah, no… I’ll just convert color to B&W. Better safe than sorry.
There is also a lot to be said for using different color to black and white conversion where you use more than on layer with different color filtration on each layer and then blending the layers together with layer masks. This lets you filter skin of a black and a white model with different Color to Black and white conversion filtration.
For example use Red for dramatic sky and clouds and green for more detailed shin tones on the people in the same shot for a dramatic portrait.
However if Sony can put it out at the same price as the A7 it would be interesting to own a BW and Color camera… nd still be way less than a Color only MFD dinosaus
You can always use external color filters on a B&W camera for these effects
Think outside the box. Why restrict to only one sensor per camera? A digital camera could have multiple sensors built-in and selectable with a switch. perhaps
– A hi-res sensor for low ISO
– A lower resolution sensor for super clean high iso, and a
– black and white sensor
While that sounds cool, there is only one path for the image; through the lens and onto the sensor/film. Anything you could do to allow selectable optical paths for multiple sensors (prisms, mirrors, other magic) is going to cause degradation as well as added complexity, mass and bulk. About all that seems practical would be to co-locate these functionalities on a single sensor, with a resultant loss of information as well as a potential for added noise and cross sensor interference. It seems to me a lot like performing surgery with a swiss army knife. You could do it, but the result might not be too pretty.
A purpose built sensor for B&W can potentially do a better job. And the best way to switch sensors is probably to move your lens to a different body, just like many of us old timers who used to carry multiple 35mm bodies loaded with different film. That is why I really hope Sony will inspire Canon (and whatever camera platform YOU have a lot of lenses for) to come out with a full frame B&W body. In that fantasy, since I already have the lenses, I could live with the 5D price point, but admit I would be happier in the 6D price range.
I doubt that Sony would sell many B&W cameras. Nearly all photographers who are interested in such a thing have bought a Leica Monochrom by now. Given the high customer satisfaction amongst that group the number of brand switchers will be close to nil. So where to sell the Sonys?
I am one of them who would switch for many reasons:
1. Getting away from boutiqueware.
2. Live view.
3. I can make “full spectrum” if it isn’t already available with the potential Sony M cam.
There are many other advantages but the key factors are already listed.
“I doubt that Sony would sell many B&W cameras. Nearly all photographers who are interested in such a thing have bought a Leica Monochrom by now.”
This is such a deluded and elitist statement from a well-known Leica shill. Given the exclusive entry price – over 6000€ – just for the body, plenty of would be B&W digital shooters, who want the finest and most film-like files are just excluded.
It is also important to consider the limitations of the Leica M. While the true rangefinder form factor is a delight to many, it is a limitation if you want to regularly use 24mm or wider lenses (an add on optical finder is necessary) or lenses over 90mm. It can also not accept zoom lenses.
Focus accuracy is great for 28 – 50 mm, providing the rangefinder remains in calibration, and there is no way to check that until you download your images onto your computer, which can obviously be a disaster if you are on a unique shoot. Accuracy is questionable at 90 mm, and more problematic at 135 mm. Forget any focal lengths over that.
“Nearly all photographers who are interested in such a thing have bought a Leica Monochrom by now.”
I will resist the temptation to suggest that you must have more money than sense.
Not all of us can simply buy something because we want it. If I could afford a Leica I would have one. But I also want a Canon 400mm 2.8 lens, a 44″ printer, and any number of other things photographic and cinematic. No doubt Canon will sell very few such lenses, and Epson very few large printers because everyone who is interested in such things must already have them.
Over the years I have managed to collect up a lot of very nice equipment, but much of it was second hand. Looking at the Monochrom on KEH still reveals a very stiff price, even used. And then there is the fact that my current lenses are Canon, Mamiya, and Schneider (view camera), not Leica. So while I want a Monochrom, I can’t presently justify the spending of that much money on a body and appropriate lenses.
Perhaps this Sony development will result in something I can afford. Perhaps it will inspire more folks to become interested in doing B&W. Eventually it may even lead to multiple competitors in the B&W camera field. I’m not a big Sony fan, but I sincerely appreciate the fact that they are looking in this direction, and have to believe that good things may flow from it.
Not true, quite frankly 8k is lot for what is a second shooter for me. I have been looking fro a second hand in the 4-5k range to no avail. this is a great potential option.
the luminance information is only being sampled from the green cells, there is actually less resolution available than one might think. About 2/3rds in fact.”
orthochromatic vs panchromatic? cant use filters? i’ll wait
The author misquoted the cited article, that quote is actually referring to color sensors with Bayer filters (i.e. most color DSLRs). A B&W sensor would be panchromatic across the visible range, or into the IR/UV if the camera maker leaves out those filters (basically whatever range silicon CMOS photodetectors are sensitive to).
@Admin
Did the source say they were developing a FF B&W sensor or a developing a FF B&W camera for consumer use?
I’m just wondering if it’s more related to the IR patent you reported a few weeks ago. If it’s a purely Infrared camera, then obviously, you wouldn’t need visible light filters. If it is for IR, it would be interesting if they used other filters ( or perhaps various dopants in the photodiodes) to make the sensor divide the IR wavelength bands and have the Bionz firmware assign those bands different colors.
FF B&W sensor. One of the new sources sent me some info about the camera too. I am trying to verify the info before to post it.
Looking forward to those! Thanks! 🙂
@Admin,
Thanks. I’m looking forward to the info about the camera.
Also, thanks for all of the effort you put into collecting and publishing the rumors, searching for and publishing links to reviews and to news, being so responsive to your readers, as well as all of the other details that goes into managing a website. I know this is not your full-time gig, so I’m very appreciative that you do this. Hopefully, you can get some revenue from the ads.
B.
Sony imitating Leica (again!). First they tried to force MF lenses (just like Leica does). Now black & white (just like Leica with their “unique” model). Imitation.
As a Leica M shooter, YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. I hesitate to shell out $1000 more than a M240 for the MM but if Sony puts out an A7 Mono, I will be all over that. Might have to buy some new colour filters but I would totally be all over using my Leica glass or my old Minolta glass on it.
I would buy an a7m over an a7 or a7r even with a 3000 dollar price tag. ideally tweaked to allow greater use with m mount lenses and a quieter shutter.
Competition is a good thing. As an occasional B&W shooter I would buy the a7m as a companion to the M typ240.
Though I have an A7R it has sat gathering dust in a drawer since I got my Leica M. I just find handling and shooting a Leica far, far more satisfying.
Given I’ve now accumulated a small collection of superb Leica lenses to go with my M, I can’t see myself buying anything other than a camera which is designed to get the best performance out of all that legendary and expensive glass. Hence a Leica MM will be on my shopping list as and when they bring out the new model and I can bring myself to part with what will inevitably be an outrageous sum of money. 🙁