NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: BruceSD on November 21, 2025, 23:46:12
-
.
I still love black and white prints. Like most of you, back in the day I had a black and white analog dark room and exclusively printed black and white.
I currently own over 40 digital cameras, but none of them are dedicated monochrome bodies, until now...
Leica makes a number of full frame "Monochrom" cameras. The are expensive running $4,000 USD to around $10,000 USD.
About a year ago, Pentax came out with a Monochrome APS-C DSLR camera body. I finally decided to purchase one, it is scheduled to arrive tomorrow. It costs $2,200 USD new; mine is an "open box" copy I bought from Amazon.com for $1,600 USD. While still expensive, it is much more affordable than one of the Leica "Monochrom's".
I'm greatly looking forward to learning how to use my new B&W body. I've got 6 or 7 colored filters all ready to try out. Also plan to try IR filters and polarizing filters too. Initially, I'll be shooting: Zeiss ZF 25/2.8, Pentax 28/2.8 shift, Leica 50/2 Summicron R, the Pentax 77/1.9 limited (voted Pentax' best lens), and a Pentax 50-135mm zoom lens. Should be lots of fun!
Why does Nikon not make a monochrome camera? Do you think they ever will? If Nikon did make a monochrome camera, would you buy one?
.
-
Personally, I probably wouldn't buy a monochrome Nikon since I find the mono conversions from raw files to be adequate. I have read that monochrome sensors (and sensor conversions) have a nice rendering of detail that's different from converted color raws. Have fun with your new camera!
-
With the Nikon D200 you can shoot in black and white
-
Many modern Nikons have a dedicated b/w mode. If you shoot jpgs, you get the b/w output directly. If shooting in RAW, use NX Studio to get full b/w tifs (or jpgd if you so prefer).
I have a Sony NEX5-N modified to true monochrome (thanks Vivek Iyer :) ). This is 16MPix APS-C and output files are very nice through Monochrome2DNG converter. Perhaps a bit sharper too? I mainly use it for IR.
-
I also like shooting monochrome. Ilford HP5 used to be my standard. With the Zf, I have the possibility to view B&W which I think inspiring. B&W conversion in PP looks satisfactory, not only with the Zf but also the D800 I used before. SilverEfex is also a useful add-on when one lacks inspiration or time.
Having a monochrome sensor would not add much where (in my case at least) more serious practice should come first.
However, If could swap a conventional sensor for a B&W IR sensor as easily as changing film, I'd be happy.
-
The first thing to remember is that B&W film is not equally sensitive to all wavelengths of light, and the wavelength sensitivity of films varies quite a lot. There is a convenient graphic showing a bunch of film spectral sensitivities at www.linabessonova.photography/spectral-sensitivity showing how much they vary. The amount of silver in an area of film is not just a measure of light intensity, and a B&W film image is also a record of the colour of the light.
The same is true of digital sensors. Silicon is not equally sensitive to all wavelengths, so the voltage output of a monochrome photosite is not just a measure of light intensity - it also varies with the colour of the light (micromagnet.fsu.edu/primer/digitalimaging/digitalimagingdetectors.html). In a monochrome sensor you don't know how colour and brightness combine to determine a photosite's output, but if you have the Bayer filters you do know the colour of the light each photosite saw so you can adjust for the spectral response and reconstruct the luminance information more accurately.
You do get a small increase in resolution by getting rid of the Bayer mosaic. That may have been worthwhile when we had 6MP sensors, but until someone invents a higher resolution printer it doesn't make any difference with modern sensors.
-
This morning's photo, taken in black and white with a Nikon D200 and an old lens, the Micro-Nikkor Auto 3.5 55mm.
-
.
Here's my first monochrome IR image. The lens I used was an adapted Zeiss ZF 25.2.8 lens at f/11 for 30 seconds.
The sharpness and detail of my first few monochrome IR images is amazing! On this shot, I can clearly see every single pine needle on the sidewalk in the foreground, and read the fine print on the signs in the middle.
-
Now that the B&W mode of the modern digital camera is quality enough, the only merit of the dedicated monochrome camera I could think of would be to use it with the red and orange filters for very high contrast and elimination of the haze that diffuses the distant scene. Otherwise, the B&W mode of a normal digital camera should suffice.
-
Since in a monochrome native camera there is no CFA or the filter spectrum is the same over each photosite, I would expect more consistent rendering of detail in the spatial scale of individual pixels (since each photosite has identical spectral response to light) and also as a panchromatic spectrum filter is likely to absorb much less light overall (narrow band filters tend to have lower peak transmission) the sensitivity to light would be higher and one can get high quality images at higher ISO settings. I don't have such a camera though, due to reasons of cost. I would greatly appreciate such a camera though for low-light events as in some events indoors in the winter the ISO can be 25600 (with an f/2.8 lens) and the quality can be poor as a result. I am still going to convert those images in many cases to monochrome as the mixed artificial color spectrums of the light sources can look unpleasant combined with the noise, and converting to monochrome reduces or eliminates those issues. However, a native monochrome camera would produce still less noise and probably a bit better definition of detail as well. The raw files would be smaller as well.
I don't necessarily need the control of the weights for different colors in the black and white conversion as long as the sensor has a good choice of panchromatic sensitivity. Having this control is good for many cases but in the low-light scenario, better SNR would be more important to me.
-
I've got a suggestion you may not like Bruce:
- 35mm camera
- Kodak Technical Pan film
- Some of the most beautiful B&W images i can remember
(and that's going back to a time when I only shot FP4 and HP5)
I believe Kodak set the colour sensitivities to respond more strongly to the red end of the spectrum
(I understand its original role was for copying technical drawings?)
I had a very enjoyable 2 weeks in Morocco in 1984, where deep blue skies and fascinating architecture made for some memorable and contrasty results with deep blacks
This one isn't a very good scan, but it's the only shot I have available from that trip
(https://pbase.com/celidh/image/23398036/original.jpg)
-
I currently own over 40 digital cameras, but none of them are dedicated monochrome bodies, until now...
<<PENTAX<<
I'm greatly looking forward to learning how to use my new B&W body. I've got 6 or 7 colored filters all ready to try out. Also plan to try IR filters and polarizing filters too. Initially, I'll be shooting: Zeiss ZF 25/2.8, Pentax 28/2.8 shift, Leica 50/2 Summicron R, the Pentax 77/1.9 limited (voted Pentax' best lens), and a Pentax 50-135mm zoom lens. Should be lots of fun!
Ay, Bruce. My take on the issue is the following:
A pixel-true stacked color sensor is great and so the idea is reinvented again and again and technical implementations like the current work at ETH Zurich wait for a breakthrough:
1) (in English): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392798640_Vertically_stacked_monolithic_perovskite_colour_photodetectors (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392798640_Vertically_stacked_monolithic_perovskite_colour_photodetectors(in) (inm German): https://ethz.ch/de/news-und-veranstaltungen/eth-news/news/2025/06/medienmitteilung-bessere-bilder-fuer-mensch-und-maschine.html (https://ethz.ch/de/news-und-veranstaltungen/eth-news/news/2025/06/medienmitteilung-bessere-bilder-fuer-mensch-und-maschine.html)
2) With a pixel true sensor you get monochrome & color in one go and I am looking forward to one of these appear in an attractive body (Foveon X3 by Sigma was not my thing)
3) A pixel true (stacked) sensor was also invented without knowledge by the others or by him here: http://www.ub.uni-siegen.de/pub/diss/fb12/2000/rieve/rieve.pdf (https://www.ub.uni-siegen.de/pub/diss/fb12/2000/rieve/rieve.pdf)
A "pure" Monochrome Sensor" features the same sprctral response curve as the silicon itself (see attached graphics) and has to be adjusted to taste. A stacked color pixel true sensor allows you to "create your own film"
So what do I want? I want a "Monochrome mode" on my camera that delivers a nice film look and with the Zf I get a exactly that and use it often
-
Why does Nikon not make a monochrome camera?
Probably because they think there is no money in it.
-
However, a native monochrome camera would produce still less noise and probably a bit better definition of detail as well. The raw files would be smaller as well.
Removing the colour filters reduces light loss, but that does not change dynamic range, because dynamic range is full well capacity minus the noise floor = dark noise plus read noise. If the highlights are not clipped, you can use the light not being lost to the colour filters to increase exposure, and then you get less noise in the shadows just above black. But you could do the same thing by using a larger aperture or a slower shutter speed. Conversely, if the highlights are already clipped, and you care about that, you have to reduce aperture or use a faster shutter speed to compensate for the extra light and you don't get the reduced shadow noise. So the conditions under which the extra light is useful are limited.
The increase in resolution with a monochrome sensor is small. One reason is that the Bayer process is the process of human vision, and our brains use luminance for detail and add a rather crude colour map on top of that. If you look at the limiting resolutions (MTF50) measured by target reproduction photography and compare them to the Nyquist limit that is the maximum benefit you can get, and with current equipment it is remarkably small. Then there is the fact that ink jet printers are limited to 260 or 300 dpi = 10 or 12 per mm, so the most they can print is 5-6 lp/mm. If that is achievable with a Bayer sensor and a good lens you don't get any benefit of a monochrome sensor's higher resolution in the print.
-
Thom Hogan just wrote something about monochrome cameras and why Nikon would not make one: https://bythom.com/newsviews/weekly-news-and-commentary.html
-
.
From my limited experience with my new Pentax K-3 iii monochrome camera I can say:
1. The same lens (Zeiss ZF 25mm f/2.8 at f/8) on the 25mp Pentax monochrome produces images that are much sharper than those I get from that same lens on my 42mp Z7 body. Same sensation I had when I first went from shooting regular digital images to shooting pixel shift images on the same digital camera. The difference was obvious and powerful.
2. I've made many digital black and white images from files captured by my color digital cameras. The middle grays and tones are clearly better from a true monochrome sensor.
3. Those of you who have not actually used a monochrome digital camera may not understand the significant increase in image quality a monochrome sensor camera provides over B&W images captured by a color digital camera. Try it, you will not believe the difference.
If you want to find out more about the affordable Pentax monochrome camera, check out this group - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/219-pentax-k-3-iii-monochrome/
-
Ay, Bruce. My take on the issue is the following:
.....
A "pure" Monochrome Sensor" features the same sprctral response curve as the silicon itself (see attached graphics) and has to be adjusted to taste. A stacked color pixel true sensor allows you to "create your own film"
So what do I want? I want a "Monochrome mode" on my camera that delivers a nice film look and with the Zf I get a exactly that and use it often
However it was achieved, I really like the B&W image you attached to your post Frank
-
However it was achieved, I really like the B&W image you attached to your post Frank
Thank you. At f/1.0 the DOF is a tad on the shallow side for the scene
-
.
From my limited experience with my new Pentax K-3 iii monochrome camera I can say:
1. The same lens (Zeiss ZF 25mm f/2.8 at f/8) on the 25mp Pentax monochrome produces images that are much sharper than those I get from that same lens on my 42mp Z7 body. Same sensation I had when I first went from shooting regular digital images to shooting pixel shift images on the same digital camera. The difference was obvious and powerful.
2. I've made many digital black and white images from files captured by my color digital cameras. The middle grays and tones are clearly better from a true monochrome sensor.
3. Those of you who have not actually used a monochrome digital camera may not understand the significant increase in image quality a monochrome sensor camera provides over B&W images captured by a color digital camera. Try it, you will not believe the difference.
If you want to find out more about the affordable Pentax monochrome camera, check out this group - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/219-pentax-k-3-iii-monochrome/ (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/219-pentax-k-3-iii-monochrome/)
Please post comparsion shots
-
Sure, but will be a few days/weeks as I'm super busy....
-
Removing the colour filters reduces light loss, but that does not change dynamic range, because dynamic range is full well capacity minus the noise floor = dark noise plus read noise. If the highlights are not clipped, you can use the light not being lost to the colour filters to increase exposure, and then you get less noise in the shadows just above black. But you could do the same thing by using a larger aperture or a slower shutter speed. Conversely, if the highlights are already clipped, and you care about that, you have to reduce aperture or use a faster shutter speed to compensate for the extra light and you don't get the reduced shadow noise. So the conditions under which the extra light is useful are limited.
I was referring to the situation where one photographs people in available light indoors, which is a situation where the scarcity of photons and color spectrum of the light sources are key limiting factors to image quality. You cannot use a larger aperture if you are already wide open and using a borderline slow shutter speed where the slightest subject movement would cause significant blur. This is a very common situation in indoor or night time events. Highlight clipping is not a priority if the subject faces are excessively noisy in the resulting images due to the lack of adequate photons. Reducing the attenuation due to the CFA would alleviate the situation somewhat, arguably significantly. Faster lenses (such as f/0.95, f/1.2 etc.) also have the problem of excessively shallow depth of field in many cases, large weight etc. and high cost, and lack of the ability to zoom which is a serious limitation in many types of event photography. I've sometimes had to go as high as ISO 102400 to register an image at f/2.8 (granted, it was deep inside medieval castle ruins, but there were some artificial lights used by the dancers). In wedding photography I routinely have situations where I am at ISO 25600; I'd much rather have the image quality of ISO 6400 or 12800 and keep the aperture and shutter speed I get from ISO 25600 in those situations. Despite the high sensitivity of cameras such as D6, there are still many situations where there is not enough light for a good enough image and which could be improved.
The increase in resolution with a monochrome sensor is small.
I agree but if the file size and processing times are considered significant limitations, the designers could triple the number of pixels of a monochrome sensor while retaining the same file size as a color sensor camera without imposing a significant penalty on file storage or processing time (raw conversion would be significantly faster than today, which is another advantage). And then the image resolution would be greater.
One reason is that the Bayer process is the process of human vision, and our brains use luminance for detail and add a rather crude colour map on top of that. If you look at the limiting resolutions (MTF50) measured by target reproduction photography and compare them to the Nyquist limit that is the maximum benefit you can get, and with current equipment it is remarkably small. Then there is the fact that ink jet printers are limited to 260 or 300 dpi = 10 or 12 per mm, so the most they can print is 5-6 lp/mm. If that is achievable with a Bayer sensor and a good lens you don't get any benefit of a monochrome sensor's higher resolution in the print.
Yet it's plainly very obvious how the image detail created by resampling from an 8K sensor to a 4K final image results in a noticeable improvement in image detail over a native 4K sensor. This wouldn't happen in the absence of the CFA and possible AA filter. Of course, if aliasing is a problem, then I refer to the above proposal of increasing the monochrome sensor pixel count by a factor of three to reduce the effects of aliasing while retaining the original file size. This is very obvious when inspecting video from native 4K and 8K cameras at 4K resolution.
Where is your inkjet limitation coming from? My Epson P900 prints at 5760 x 1440 dpi. Some landscape photographers using medium format have suggested that improvements are visible up to about 1000 ppi when printing. Others can't see much due to aging vision or otherwise poor eyesight. Personally since I don't use glossy paper, I haven't gotten into such comparisons; matte and semiglossy papers don't show as fine details as glossy. But anyway if the print size is large (or there is a need to reframe by cropping) then there is plenty of opportunity to benefit from higher resolution and MTF. (For landscape, I wouldn't personally be using a black and white sensor.)
-
The limit of printer resolution is how small the steps of the paper and the nozzle carriage can be. Printing at 5000 dpi on the long axis would require the steps of paper movement to be 5 microns. They aren't and to the best of my knowledge, they can't be. The drops coming out of the nozzles can be as small as you like, which is why you can have so many dpi, but that isn't increasing resolution.
The limit of human vision is about 10 lp/mm, given excellent lighting and high contrast - and no refractive error - so 5-6 lp/mm for a photograph is plenty.
-
I have noticed over ≈15 years of inkjet printing at home with Epson pigment printers that, at least under my command, the inkjet printers cannot reproduce the sense of "sharpness" and detail one sees in a 8x12cm image printed in a good photo book made by conventional lithography. There seems to be limit to inkjet that is exceeded by other systems. Another example of a medium that exceeds inkjet would be contact prints from 8x10 inch film. The smaller the inkjet print, the more obvious the detail deficit is, assuming the original image has lots of detail.
-
The sense of falling into a well of detail you get from an 8 x 10 contact print is something too few people experience. Slow B&W film can record 100 lp/mm, and although paper cannot quite match that, a contact print can exceed by several times the limit of human vision. The awareness of detail you can't see is, IMO, a big part of the magic of large format photography.
-
The limit of printer resolution is how small the steps of the paper and the nozzle carriage can be. Printing at 5000 dpi on the long axis would require the steps of paper movement to be 5 microns. They aren't and to the best of my knowledge, they can't be. The drops coming out of the nozzles can be as small as you like, which is why you can have so many dpi, but that isn't increasing resolution.
The limit of human vision is about 10 lp/mm, given excellent lighting and high contrast - and no refractive error - so 5-6 lp/mm for a photograph is plenty.
I never said that the printer 5000 dpi along the long axis; in the 1440x5760 figure, the first figure is along the direction of roller movement, the second along the direction of lateral movement of the print head (the relationship to long and short dimensions are unclear if roll paper is used). Since the printer lays out ink over a width of the paper in one pass using a matrix of nozzles and then moves the paper a bit and lays out another layer of ink with partial overlap, I'm not sure if it is necessary to move the paper in steps corresponding to the resolution of the image details along the long dimension of the paper, it could lay out finer details than the roller step size by using the nozzle matrix - at least in theory. I don't know if this is the case though.
Here is some testing of the print resolution at different input resolutions (and printer settings), using Epson Ultra Luster Paper:
https://www.printerknowledge.com/threads/star-chart-resolution-tests-of-the-epson-p900.16920/
The authors conclude that "From these tests, I concluded that, for my needs, using 720 Image PPI and the 1440x1440 print quality setting was a good choice. This setting provided a decent increase in resolution while enabling the full P900 resolution at the cost of 4X the image pixels. I would use 720 Image PPI and the 1440x5760 print quality setting if, in rare cases, the image justified a slight resolution or edge quality boost. The small increment in resolution for a portion of the angular space with an Image PPI of 1440 did not seem worth another 4X total image pixels."
720 ppi = 28 pixels per mm which can reproduce at most 14 lpmm was concluded a good choice for the source image, although in some cases a higher resolution of the source image (1440 ppi) produced slightly more resolution along some angular directions, but this was not considered worthwhile by the author. But clearly if we are talking about the limitations of the printer, the source material should be of the highest quality.
Glossy paper is likely to be somewhat better in reproducing fine detail than luster, but I haven't used it on the P900 and that was not tested in the above article.
Even if some print-making techniques produce more detailed or sharper small prints than a P900, for me this has not been an issue. Having the fast turnaround (a few min) and control afforded by having all the equipment to edit the image and make prints in one place along with free choice of print size (up to A2 in my case), the high maximum density of inkjet prints, and excellent light permanence of the prints means I basically never source out printing of my images, though I recommend people to have commercial labs do the thank-you cards because type C paper has better handling and wet resistance than the inkjet prints so they are more likely to survive handling by the postal service. If I need to make larger than A2 prints, then of course I source out, but that's not typically the case. I've never been happy with the print to screen matching of commercial labs and I've had so many quality issues with them that I can't imagine making prints if I had to outsource them on a regular basis. It would throw away any joy I have from photography and cause so much frustration.
-
I have noticed over ≈15 years of inkjet printing at home with Epson pigment printers that, at least under my command, the inkjet printers cannot reproduce the sense of "sharpness" and detail one sees in a 8x12cm image printed in a good photo book made by conventional lithography. There seems to be limit to inkjet that is exceeded by other systems. Another example of a medium that exceeds inkjet would be contact prints from 8x10 inch film. The smaller the inkjet print, the more obvious the detail deficit is, assuming the original image has lots of detail.
Few books unfortunately have high print quality, in my experience, most show some visible raster in the image, and some friends of mine who have had their photography printed in a book, have complained about the color matching as well. I by far prefer the inkjet prints to the print quality of books. Perhaps I just haven't seen well-printed books.
-
Not sure this adds much and no way as technical as Bob Friedman's converted D850 shots, but a few from a morning walk in Fremantle with borrowed M10M and Leica 35mm FLE. I wish I could afford the combination.
-
And same day with Nikon F6 Ilford XP2 and AF-S 35mm f1.4G
-
Few books unfortunately have high print quality, in my experience, most show some visible raster in the image, and some friends of mine who have had their photography printed in a book, have complained about the color matching as well. I by far prefer the inkjet prints to the print quality of books. Perhaps I just haven't seen well-printed books.
B&W is more likely to look good in books than color, but still seems to require a commitment to high-end printing by the publisher; of course color adds color hue rendition issues. On the other hand, way back in the 1990's I had a friend that would shoot snapshots on 35mm color neg film, and then take the 4x6" machine prints to the local color Xerox shop and have 8x10" color Xeroxes made. Everyone loved that they were on plain paper, had exaggerated color saturation, blobby low resolution and being ink, didn't have the plastic "RC color photo paper" look.
-
Simply because there is no market for it and monochromatic cameras will always be more expensive due to that.
It does have benefits: more light, more resolution and higher QE%.
For the purists, more "pure" in a sense, too.
The downside is obvious. To get a colour image, you will need RGB filters. You need high-quality bandpass or even narrowband interference filters. These are often over $400 (Semrock) or $200 (optolong) a pop. For a set of three, you are looking at upwards of $1500. Mind you, these are only 25mm in diameter. Now imagine how much a 52mm one would cost. What about 77mm?
https://www.idex-hs.com/store/product-detail/af01_551_22_25/fl-433417?cat_id=semrock_optical_filters&node=individual_optical_filters
Therefore, the only economically feasible option is to install it in front of the sensor.
Now you have introduced a ~10mm thick piece of glass. Whoops, you have to alter your lenses slightly to compensate for the extra path length, or else the lenses will be soft -- what is the point of monochromatic cameras again? Time to introduce a special class of lenses that nobody would buy.
Would you trust the user to install something right in front of the sensor? Time to increase the price to compensate for the extra RMAs due to stupidity.
So the conclusion is simply forget about colour images. Will you miss them? Yes, you will.
There is just no market. It is more feasible to convert a camera to monochrome. The bayer array can be scraped off with a bamboo chopstick.
These cameras are particularly useful for scientific imaging and deep space astrophotography.
For example, you can view JMC's extensive gallery of diatoms here: https://diatomimaging.com/gallery1/
He uses a BW converted Nikon D850 camera. I was told that he uses jpegs straight out of the camera.
I have some as well. These were captured with a Hamamatsu camera. The colour image was a blend of RGB stacks.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54316926189_cd67c675b2_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53221991388_7ac2895d8b_b.jpg)
(I really wish we could get square sensors on normal cameras. Modern lenses can fill them well, and it will offer greater cropping capabilities.)
If you are interested in monochromatic conversions, a D5100 running Nikon Hacker firmware would be solid. I am thinking about potentially offering converted cameras for sale but the amount of pre/post-sales work puts me off.
-
sometimes existing cameras can perform tricks you did not expect they could.
I have been using 8x pixel shift on a Z8 for measurements on a static object lately.
That yields tricolor data on every pixel site. In the green channel it sums up to 16bit data on every one of the 45.4 Mpixels.
For red and blue it sums up to 15bit data on every pixel. Within the limits of the 3 color Bayer filter limitations, you can adjust to your preferred monochrome response in post-
processing.
I find this more appealing than using 32x pixel shift. Which yields again 15 and 16bit values on 4 times as many pixels at half pixel pitch. Mosaic composite images have the potential for better resolution. A 2x2 mosaic would provide better resolution due use of a longer lens and due to less reduction of sharpness by (sequentially) filling a 4x sized sensor.
-
The sense of falling into a well of detail you get from an 8 x 10 contact print is something too few people experience.
Thanks Les, i concur.
In the early 1980's, I visited a traditional b&w supplies shop in London to buy some Selenium toner.
For me, it was like going into Aladdin's Den.
In addition to the software, there were some of the most striking & richly toned 10x8 prints I'd ever seen.
"Don't get too depressed said the owner. They're contact prints from a 10 x 8 negative"
(it's possible they were from plates - I was too awestruck to ask)
sometimes existing cameras can perform tricks you did not expect they could.
I have been using 8x pixel shift on a Z8 for measurements on a static object lately.
......
I find this more appealing than using 32x pixel shift.
Fascinating Bernard.
I may have missed them but can you share any examples?
-
@Macro_Cosmos
enlightening rant. thank you very much
-
Fascinating Bernard.
I may have missed them but can you share any examples?
Hi Colin,
for me it was just very useful on using the camera as a recording instrument at tests. Otherwise I just tried take a picture out of my window. Of course the leaves moved slightly giving weird effects. But the the fine detail structure of the wall plaster at the house across showed no color moire, and I did not notice other moire. It is great for static subjects where it may matter, for example taking an image of a big printed map, art or a building. The 45 M tricolor pixels with pixel shift make it feel like medium format or more. And the 182 Mpix wirh 16x or 32x shift may be even better for your purpose.
there is a link to a beer can shot which impressed me at https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/a-surprise-with-z8-pixel-shift.4752600/
-
I left my town to meet some friends in Canberra and brought the D800 I converted to monochrome.
At an extreme level, the converted D800 (36MP) produces more real resolution and gives sharper results than my Z8 (45MP). This is obviously not a fair comparison.
However, the shutter shock ruins any inconsequential detail it gained. The two end up looking similar. I tested this with a line chart.
The D800 can see minor imperfections in the 400lp/mm areas due to the chrome deposition process. The Z8 renders all of this into soft mush. I wish I can properly capture this. To do that, I will have to build a relay circuit and put the camera in bulb mode with the mirror forcibly restricted so it cannot move. Doable, but I am too lazy. Maybe when I am back to work, I will run some tests and just claim it is for research.
These converted cameras are also painful to use. The highlights are easily clipped. Autofocus will not work, and there is no way to calibrate it. Even if the image is sharply focused in the viewfinder, it will come out back-focused (my specific unit). I have to mentally compensate for this by deliberately adjusting the focus.
I measured a slight misalignment of the sensor (it was not installed back to be perfectly flat). This is likely not possible to do perfectly without factory tools. The best bet is to likely raise an RMA, explain the situation, and send it back to the factory for sensor plane adjustment.
Here are some mediocre snapshots.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55003256802_3a088f55fb_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55004443485_f44510847d_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55004138836_16f3182fbb_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55003256507_71159ff63d_b.jpg)