I'm thinking of getting a Ricoh GR IV Monochrome, but the thing is, can something like a Fuji X-H2 fake it well enough with a B&W film simulation? There's going to be mottling due to differences in color channel noise at higher ISO, right?Damn, it'd be a no-brainer at $1500 but $2100...
Have zoomers forgotten you can actually rent gear?
It's my favorite for pixel peeping and shooting in dimly lit bars, but not really worth it for anything else imp
>>4516884Thank you for an actual answer.
why not just make color images b+w in POST
>>4516890It looks nicer and you can do trichromes
I was seriously considering the monochrome, but went with the standard GRIV to document my life and travels in color too, and it's a great everyday carry for me. I like how wild the Hard B&W recipe is, but I wonder really how big the IQ difference is.>>4516899This is a great idea, I was just looking into getting slides to do trichromes, seems like a pain.
>>4516879Imagine paying $2k to pixel peepB&W is ~30% sharper than bayer is 30% sharper than xtrans. Bayer and xtrans lose one stop of light also. Therefore just buy a 32+ mp ff, convert to grayscale and resize it down a bit
>>4516947>B&W is ~30% sharper than bayer is 30% sharper than xtrans>source: my ass
>>4516948its true. look it up. demosaicing xtrans with color is lower resolution and cant recover fine colored details as well as a bayer array. it wouldnt be much better for just converting a color image to b&w or using fujis jpeg presetsbut if you do it right xtrans can be better in b&w because of its huge effectively monochrome sections (2x2 green blocks). only the freetard editors can do it with a special monochrome demosaicing method that doesn’t attempt to recover color. adobe capture one etc do not have this feature and most fujifags are not tech literate enough to use shitty loonixware so you never hear about it.
Monochrome is literally one click in any raw processing software anon
>>4516879The photos are sharper even in low noise compared to the standard GRIV. High noise it's on another level. You can shoot over 20k+ ISO and still get nice IQ. The grain looks more like film and more organic. That's what I learned from watching tons of reviews and sample photos. But I'm waiting for the GRIVx in monochrom.
>>4516959>you can now enjoy in super high detail the dust grains on your sensor which you will not be able to removewoah
>>4516949>its true. look it up>I have no source
>>4516959This.
>>4516961>teach me elementary school logic and physics
>>4516965>source: my assso I was right
>>4516966>how can a massive 2x2 green only block resolve less colored detail than a 2x2 RGBG block?I’d link the articles and waste my time scrounging up demo pictures but now is not the time for fuji fanboys to seetheIt always goes like this>show articles>they didnt use fujis jpeg engine (post fuji jpeg vs c1 raw sharpness and color improvements here)>this article is old (show that xtrans has actually removed photosites entirely since, in a ham fisted effort to improve fuji’s terrible autofocus)>w-well PROVE YOU EVEN NEED MORE! NOT LIKE THAT I DONT LIKE THIS PHOTO! BE GLAD YOU GET ANYTHING YOU DONT NEED MORE FUJI IS FINE STOP COMPLAINING YOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS! SOME PROFESSIONALS USE FUJI!!1! >:(And this would basically derail and consume the entire thread because fujislugs are mald machines
>>4516970Not sure why you're bringing irrelevant stuff up.>B&W is ~30% sharper than bayer is 30% sharper than xtransYou must have gotten 30% from somewhere right? Or was it your ass?
>>4516970>this article is oldIt's very insightful to me that you still don't see why this is relevant, and why it gets brought up, when those two specific articles get posted. I'm hoping one day you'll get it.
>>4516973The bayer matrix reduces the color information by roughly 2/3, meaning a pure b&w sensor has roughly 1/3 more resolution
>>4516974See! The malding fujislug was present after all. Oh yes the article is old. And the latest xtrans iteration replaced every fourth green pixel with an AF sensor and imaging dead spot so it’s slightly worse now. Xtrans is blurrier in color. Get over it. Fuji invented it because they make CFAs, but not OLPFs, and it reduces the cost of manufacturing moire resistant cameras (a quality OLPF is actually pretty pricy). The point is being blurrier, like a strong OLPF. Be glad there are software solutions that can make it better than jpeg or c1 (also exclusive to darktable/rawtherapee, 3 pass demosaic) and even better in monochrome. You get some perks, besides color bleed from being able to treat aliasing like chroma noise.
>>4516979>I still don't even understand the point of the article and what it actually meansSad, maybe one day bb
>>4516979>Get over it.Says the one who brings it up every chance they get lol
>>4516981>>4516980You don’t even use fuji anymore after your gear liquidation meltdown. Did you stop taking pro work?
>>4516890Triple the resolution for equivalent MP and also better low light performance because there's no CFA blocking the light.
>>4516879This is a con camera, so is the colour one. They should be half the price, that'd still be too much
>>4517003>Triple the resolution for equivalent MPNo, see Bayer-interpolation.A 20 MP colour sensor does not have 20M red pixels, 20M green pixels and 20M blue pixels.It's 5M red pixels, 10M green pixels and 5M blue pixels.The rest is interpolated.Regardless, you don't need absurd levels of megapixels anyway unless you want to print billboards at 300 DPI.>better low light performance because there's no CFA blocking the lightFair, but any decent semi modern camera has good enough low light performance to not realy be a factor outside of astrophotography.So, there is little reason to buy a dedicated B/W sensor camera.
>>4517010It's a low-volume custom Sony sensor, it's going to cost more.I bought the camera. I'll enjoy using it, I know that. I waitfagged on the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome and now it's gone with nothing but "Mint+++" bullshit Japan sellers on ebay. I think of the GR IV Monochrome as a replacement for my Nikon AF600, which I used to shoot with Ilford XP2 (since it could get developed anyplace which did color film).
>>4517047> you don't need absurd levels of megapixels anyway unless you want to print billboards at 300 DPI.Boomer mythMeasly 8x10s (in print and on common 4k screens) benefit from bayer resolutions up to 100mp (approx. point of diminishing returns). Gradients improve, aliasing is replaced by detail. Copers use pixel shift and blend in the standard base layer to cover fuckups (takes hours), knowers just buy a canon 5ds for $600.
Oh the Salarymen I would fellate to get a Canon monochrome DSLR/MILC...
First image from the GR IV Monochrome. I use the red filter and let it underexpose based on the sky. Normally in color I'd lift the shadows, but in B&W I think leaving the dark provides a good contrast. In low light the sensor is amazing compared to color, it's like 3 stops better.
>>4517275>$2100 for this
>>4517291get a job
>>4517275>>4517291yeah anon seriously...2100$ to take images like this ?
>>4517292Since that is a picture you could have taken with any camera from the past 20 years, I'd suggest spending that money on some workshops instead of gear
Stop having nice things
>>4517365>>4517360>>4517291Post your B&Ws anons. I want to see a black-off.
>>4517275Looks good anon. Full frame iq in a tiny GR body
>>4517433taken on highest quality camera, a broken iPhone 7 Plus
>>4517047>No, see Bayer-interpolation.>A 20 MP colour sensor does not have 20M red pixels, 20M green pixels and 20M blue pixels.>It's 5M red pixels, 10M green pixels and 5M blue pixels.But you just described exactly why a b&w sensor is in reality triple the resolution of an equivalent MP colour sensor.
>>4516890>fix it in postBet you don't even frame your shots and just crop later, don't you..
>>4517433
>>4517275Newfag here, what's the difference aside from the higher iso capability between a Ricoh Monochrome vs a regular camera with Monochrome + Red filter film simulation? Or a red filter on the lens?
>>4516879I want ot get a Ricoh GR. But based on user reviews, QC is sus
>>4520356Go for it. Take a couple thousand shots on it and if it breaks, replace it under warranty. If it doesn't, your camera will likely last. They aren't built tough so you can't be rough with it like you can with something like a D850. I've had to take mine (original GR) apart to clean dust but mine has worked fine for many years.
>>4520355Genuine monochrome sensors entirely bypass the normal bayer bullshit you get with heaps of small-detail objects (like trees). The noise profile is entirely different because you have no chroma (the uglier noise of the two).The difference between digital filters and a real colour filter is actually in favour of digital since with a real filter what you're actually doing to blocking a bunch of light then exposing higher to make up that lost light, but digital just takes the colour info and moves values around.
>>4517433a few from my m10-m over the yearscould do another of people and some work, but would have to blackout faces
Literally one click in any image processing software
>>4517433herte's some literal hp5
>>4520479Ngmi
>>4516879editing monochrome sensor images sucks though. cant play around with the color channels when they're not there.mono sensors are marketing shit for fart sniffing faggots
>>4517275imagine spending 2000 euros on that
>>4520500>editing monochrome sensor images sucks though>cant play around with the color channels when they're not thereYou're supposed to use real filters. You know, like actual photographers using actual mono film used? Get the filter thread adapter and do it properly.Editing color into monochrome is just modern slop B&W, and if you're going to half ass it then yes, keep your bayer sensor.
>>4520502>you are supposed to manually carry and mount filters like we're in the 1930s because... BECAUSE IT'S JUST BETTER OK????I will keep using my camera's native 3-color filtering system called the Bayer matrix to choose in post like a sane person who lives in 2026
>>4516879stupid larp. every cam has a black and white mode and every digital since 2012 is too sharp and sterile already. more sharp is not a benefit at all
>>4520626That's fine. Nobody said you can't do that. You just need to acknowledge you're half assing it and it could be better.
>>4520628hurr
>>4516959Why can't I just shoot with many megapixel, blur the image, convert it to a lower resolution and pretend its an analogue photo. No one will notice it was a shitty camera with lots of noise. Whats the catch?
>>4520661>No one will notice it was a shitty camera with lots of noise.If you're going to downsample a 26MP photo to 1200x800 then you might as well have used your phone and just used your inbuilt AI APPROVED GOY filters to simulate the look.One of the few remaining bastions of "why the fuck did I buy this camera" is the higher true resolution (no your 50MP quad bayer phone is not actually 50MP), and using better glass.
>>4520658It's actually rather impressive how this mogs even a high res FF sensor for SNR. Truly paints the picture how gay bayer is.
>>4520665>le pixel peeping on dpreviewTheir ACR preset is bad, ACR is bad, and they lie on their testsDownload raws, open in capture one, adjust nothing. Defaults only.
>>4520666>Just put in a bunch of effort and you'll see I'm rightI'm not going to do that.
>>4520663I don't have a goyphone. I do have old analogue and old digital cameras. I use them because they are no smartphone and not because they are superior. Currently I mostly shoot 5 Megapixel for sharing stuff with email. I could shoot 8 megapixel, jew the image and reduce it to 5 megapixel so nobody will notice. I don't like using AI.
>>4520665Wait, guys, I think I'm starting to nootice.
>>4520747When did:Click resize image == AI???
>>4516879can you stick it on a tripod, take 3 photos with different color filter and achieve better effects in still photography than more expensive color camera?
