Here Are My Reactions to the Pentax Monochrome

The first commercial monochrome-only DSLR is now available for pre-order.

Traditionally, "monochrome" is what it's been called in the UK. The near-universal US term is "black and white." This is abbreviated "B&W," and hyphenated when it becomes an adjective, for example, in the phrase "black-and-white camera." Neither the British nor the American term is exactly correct, but I won't get into that.

In any event, I'm a B&W photographer from way back. I began writing for Darkroom Photography magazine in the '80s, became chief editor of Photo Techniques magazine in the '90s, and, under the nom de plume "L.T. Gray"—el tigre, geddit?—was a contributing editor to Ed Buziak's Darkroom User magazine, which was based in Wales. I was a regular columnist for the British Black & White Photography magazine in the 2000s. Although I could and did print color with everything from JOBOs to massive $10,000 Hope processors, my principle expertise was B&W darkroom printing. And we all know how practical and valuable that is now.

More than that, I love B&W—and I have since I was a kid. When I open a page of image thumbnails on Google Images or in Flicker, my eye zooms right in on the B&W shot if there is one. When I used to spend hours in the Art Library at Dartmouth, looking through book after book, I gradually realized that I preferred drawings to paintings by 1400s–1800s European artists. And so on. In photography, it has to be good B&W photography, and that's becoming increasingly rare, but, assuming it's good, I usually prefer it. I know some people are the opposite, preferring color, and of course I have no problem with that.

So here are a few of my personal reactions, "global and local," you might say, to the first B&W-specific DSLR, formally "The PENTAX K-3 Mark III Monochrome," per Pentax; "Pentax Monochrome" for short:

Global (with my public writer's hat on): I suspect that this is in effect a limited-edition, one-off model, the sensor of which is a color sensor that's been stripped like any other custom conversion, rather than a sensor made to be monochrom direct from the fabricator, that could take advantage of economies of scale. (Note that the foregoing is speculation. I don't know.) Still and all, it's an official, custom product that has received the attention of Ricoh's engineers and designers—with a factory warranty, too—and there's no small advantage in that.

Ricoh is a company I'm not very familiar with personally, but it's a cameramaker that goes its own way, and one which, in its own way, is just as adventuresome as Leica or Sigma or Fuji. My personal position as a photo-writer is that I want photographers to have what they need to do their work. Ricoh/Pentax provides a lot of richness to the mix. Current products serve a big chunk of the market very well, but there isn't much creativity in the smaller niches. That's another article. So I absolutely applaud the Pentax Monochrome.

At the same time, I have some sympathy for Leica. Leica courageously began serving B&W photographers in 2012 and has done so continuously ever since, expanding from the Monochrom M rangefinders to include the Q[x] camera line in Monochrom versions as well. I don't think the Pentax threatens their efforts, because the price of entry is so different, but Leica deserves its success in this field.

In a perfect world, as I see it, there would be a mono-only pictorial-camera sensor that comes that way from the factory, and several companies would make mono-only cameras that could cost less than the color versions. On the other hand, the era of mainstream B&W is over. Robert Frank famously said that "black and white are the colors of photography"*, but colors are the colors of photography now, and nothing's going to change that back to what it once was.

But that makes Pentax's (Ricoh's) move more valuable, not less. A mono-only camera is easier to use for dedicated B&W shooters because it removes the color/mono ambivalence that saddles every photographer who simply converts color files in post. Some deal with that well, some not well, but it's an impediment that's best eliminated if what you're really dedicated to is excellent black-and-white. Most photographers can see better in B&W if it's the way the camera sees. There's a reason the Leica Monochroms have been around so long and have sold as well as they have.

Compared to my custom modified Sigma, let alone the Leica Monochroms, the $2,200 Pentax Monochrom is a bargain. You're getting a K3-III ($1,700 for the colors version), a highly refined and beautifully designed "goldilocks" digital SLR, with a sensor conversion to mono and dedicated menu controls added for only $500 extra. Add a lens and you can still be beneath the cost of mine, which itself is less than half the cost of a Leica Q2 Monochrom.

So, my reaction: bravo. And, 'bout time! And, godspeed, Ricoh—I hope this product succeeds, and I'll try to do my part to help**.

###

Local (with my private photographer's hat on): My first reaction was an amused state of something close to anguish. I've been calling for an "affordable" B&W-only camera since the early 2000s, and I expected it until the Leica Monochrom was first released in 2012. After that, I was sure it could only be short time before a more mainstream cameramaker mimicked Leica while undercutting it in price. Well, it's only taken 11 years for that to happen. But the irony was that just last year I finally, finally caved to what appeared to be the only real option for a B&W camera for me, and had a camera converted: a professional-photographer reader loaned me his Sigma fp that had been converted by Monochrome Imaging Services, and I liked it so much that I duplicated it for myself. It cost about $1,800 for the camera, viewfinder, and 45mm lens, and then $1,200 for the conversion, which was paid for by a different generous reader. So, $3,000 all in, even though I didn't have to pay all of that myself.

Then, while my camera was out being converted, the rumors of the Pentax Monochrome started up! The timing seemed...freaky.

Epiphany
At first, I admit, I was tempted to see this as another example of the Universe mocking me, which has happened rather too much in my life. As you might remember, I joked that I was the cause of the Pentax coming along when it did, specifically so I could be thus mocked. That might be called the "self-centeredness fallacy," i.e., the addlepated belief that everything that happens in the wider world is directed at us personally. Of course I don't believe such a thing objectively, although things in the wider world do affect us personally and sometimes we can't help but attach some kind of weight to that fact. The ancients called it fate.

But the other night I had an epiphany. It's actually not UNfortunate for me that I bought the Sigma when I did, just before the Pentax arrived; it's actually fortunate. I was out photographing the other night and lucked into one of those magical situations, and took a picture I consider a wonderful stroke of luck. I'll tell you about it and show you the picture in a few days. But looking at the result in the camera later, it suddenly occurred to me that I'm damn lucky to have found a camera that I like so much, that gives me good results and a way of working to which I've long sought to return.

This isn't to say that I'm sorry the Pentax has come along. Actually I'm delighted. I applaud Pentax and I hope the camera sells well and brings the company all kinds of attention. But, personally, I really like my Sigma rig. It's got all kinds of limitations, from rolling shutter to the fact that you have to use outside software for ingestion. It's a quirky camera, no doubt. But the whole shebang fits my preferences like a pair of Tricker's brogues, and I'm delighted with it and have been very happy shooting with it. It's for me. Had the Pentax come along just a little earlier, I no doubt would have bought that—it's probably an all-around better solution to the B&W-camera conundrum than the one I've ended up with, for any number of reasons, and 99% of prospective buyers will be happier with it than they would be with what I use. If the Pentax had arrived just before the converted Sigma came to my attention, I would have been invested in the Pentax and probably wouldn't have been able to justify switching to the Sigma even if I knew I wanted to.

So I had it backwards. This actually worked out great for me, not badly. I was lucky, not unlucky.

It's all in the way you look at things.

I'll show you that lucky picture I got in a few days. You might not like it—I lean toward the documentary rather than the pictorial, and not everybody prefers that—but it feels like a "hit" to me and it's a good example of the kind of shot I'm after when I go out looking. And how it fell into my lap makes for an interesting story.

Mike

*"Black and white are the colors of photography. To me, they symbolize the alternatives of hope and despair to which mankind is forever subjected. Most of my photographs are of people; they are seen simply, as through the eyes of the man in the street. There is one thing the photograph must contain, the humanity of the moment. This kind of photography is realism. But realism is not enough—there has to be vision, and the two together can make a good photograph. It is difficult to describe this thin line where matter ends and mind begins." —Robert Frank (source; I don't know where the original came from, but I trust Aperture to get it right.)

**Putting my readers' interests first, of course.

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

John Shriver: "There's one important difference in the Sigma fp. You compose the image in monochrome on the LCD on the back. With the Pentax, the reflex viewing is (of course) in color; only Live View and playback on the LCD are in monochrome."

Dan Khong: "Anything in B&W imaging resonates with me. I was brought up in the days of Verichrome Pan. That's also one of the the ways—undistracted by colour—by which we reach into the soul of a subject. Through Photo Techniques magazine, that certain chief editor became a friend. Now what's his name again?"

Mike replies: I don't know, but he just became the new Mayor of Denver.

By the way, the very beginning of my interest in photography overlapped with Verichrome Pan and Medalist paper. Still fond memories. I should frame the few prints I still have; they're artifacts now.

Gary: "Apparently there are Nikon F-to-Pentax K lens adapters, so Nikon shooters wouldn't even have to buy a new lens. More importantly, I'm curious about the distinction you make between a color sensor that has been modified to take only B&W images, and a hypothetical 'right from the factory' B&W sensor. Why would the latter be preferable? Which type does Leica use in their Monochroms? Also, what are the advantages of (either type) B&W sensor, vs. setting your camera to monochrome mode?"

Mike replies: Well, with the considerable caveat that I don't actually know what I'm talking about, I just assume that making a sensor without applying the color filter array (CFA), and then not having to strip the CFA, which is a painstaking, time-consuming, and expensive job, would make the sensor cheaper. But Voltz already has a Pentax Monochrome, and he says it looks like the sensor was manufactured without the CFA in the first place, because he knows how to recognize a sensor that has had its CFA removed. So maybe Pentax (and does that mean Leica too?) has already got that sorted.

There's a lot the manufacturers don't tell us. It's nice when every now and then I discover one of those "secrets," but that doesn't mean I know very many of them.

The chief advantage of a B&W sensor is that it doesn't record color, so you don't have to decide while you're shooting whether whatever you're looking at should be a color picture or a B&W picture, and then, later, you never have to make that same decision in post. That helps in concentrating the mind and the mission.

Comments

[Craig]

I like monochrome photography, but I'm not sure what it means to say, "Most photographers can see better in B&W if it's the way the camera sees." It's not as if the view through a traditional optical viewfinder (which I assume is what this Pentax has, since it's a DSLR) is any different depending on whether the camera records color or not. I assume this must be some sort of psychological thing: are you saying that if you know the camera is recording monochrome, it changes how your think about the full-color scene you see through the viewfinder? If we were talking about a mirrorless camera with an EVF that could actually show a monochrome image, that would be another matter, but I don't think that's the case here.

While there is a technical benefit to doing monochrome photography with a monochrome camera, in that you get sharper images if you remove the Bayer filter and don't have to de-mosaic the image, but on the other hand I've found that shooting digitally in color and converting to monochrome afterward makes it possible to control tonality in ways that are impossible with contrast filters. Lightroom has a neat feature that allows you to brighten or darken different colors within the image (say, just the greens, or just the purples) even if your final result is a monochrome image. This makes it much easier to reduce distracting areas of brightness without editing things out (which I don't like to do because it feels dishonest) or resorting to a burn tool.

[SteveW]

The Pentax though will have an optical viewfinder, and that shows the world in it's real color. Does that matter for the B&W photographer these days? I'm assuming the Leica and Sigma has an EVF and shows the world the way the camera sees it, as B&W.

I'm a novice when it comes to B&W photography, but when I do shoot B&W, I change the JPEG setting to monochrome so that I see the world in B&W.

[Joseph Kashi]

I recently received the Pentax Monochrome that I bought directly from Ricoh America. Below are my initial thoughts.

I do more pictorial rather than documentary photography at this point and so my thoughts are oriented toward the "fine art" photographer rather than the street photographer. Ever since some classes with Minor White at MIT WAY back, I've also been an active large format film photography, using a variety of formats from 4x5 through 11x14, so it's fair to say that I am serious about BW photography in addition to my normal digital color work.

Although I very nearly bought and converted a Sigma fP after your positive comments, for some reason I did not do so immediately, perhaps because of Pentax mono rumors that surfaced about the same time. The Pentax made more sense as I already have various Pentax APS-C and full-frame Limited Series lenses.

Initial observations holding the Pentax - it feels good in the hand and does not seem overly heavy. The only ergonomic deficit that's evident to me is the lack of an up-down tiltable rear LCD finder, which would be handy under some circumstances. The customization menu is different than my earlier Pentax cameras but straighforward and very full-featured.

While waiting for the arrival of the monochrome body, I tested all of my lenses, including the APS-C Limited Series 20-40mm zoom. My older Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom was clearly the sharpest, basically capable of resolving to 24MP sensor limits over most of the field, so that became my prior lens for the monochrome camera.

As this was something of a quick and dirty test, I shot both cameras in DNG RAW format anjd converted the color Kp image to monochrome using Lightroom 6.14's conversion utility. Both sets of images were then processed to taste, as identically as possible. I did not have time to do a conversion with Silver EFX software, which might do a slightly better color-mono conversion.

Comparing the new monochrome and my existing 24MP Pentax Kp body using the Tamron lens and a highly detailed outdoor scene, I came to the following conclusions.

1. Both bodies resolved about equally, with the monochrome perhaps resolving slightly better or at least showing better acutance.

2. Although the Lightroom-converted color image was really quite good, the Pentax Monochrome image struck me, subjectively, as having better gradation and tonality. It was subtle but noticeable difference. I found both pleasing but the new monochrome camera image better.

3. The Pentax monochrome model had no front/back focus issues with the Tamron lens straight out of the box, unlike some other earlier Pentax cameras.

4. In Lightroom, both sets of images showed zero noise at base ISO, no surprise, with very smooth gradation, somewhat better on the new monochrome camera's image. Highlight detail retention was slightly, but noticeably, better on the monochrome image.

5. Lightroom tended to process both sets of images much too bright, losing a lot of the richness. Using the LR auto-tone feature, then adjusting to taste resulted in very nice gradation and classic-appearing images. it was particularly important to reduce exposure settings, particularly from the initial auto-tone result.

6. Handling was very good.

Thanks

[Jnny]

I read your pen name as Lite Gray. That works too given the topic of the post.

Will the Pentax viewfinder and preview be in monochrome as well?

[Bill Tyler]

I'm really delighted that Ricoh has taken this step. But I'm not so sure I agree with your comment about economies of scale. Stripping a conventional sensor of its Bayer filter may be more economical than custom-manufacturing a pure monochrome sensor, simply because the color sensors are made at much larger scale. A pure mono sensor will never be a high-production item. This is all speculative, of course, and only the manufacturers know for sure.

[Stéphane Bosman]

Maybe one of the best attributes of the Pentax is the K mount. Like the Nikon F mount, it has been around for ever and one can find good lenses at any budget, even very small. One can find lenses of all generations since the 70's and try them, have fun, explore, learn, take pictures with different looks, etc... All that in native B&W. Very, very tempting.

[Antony Shepherd]

I'm hoping they can bring that sensor to the Ricoh GR at around the same price point as the regular GR.
I'm not sure I'd want to lug around a mono SLR but a mono GR I could stick in a pocket and take anywhere would be something I'd want!

[Zyni]

I am not British but have lived here (currently here at great festival of my people even!) for some periods and have very good English and Scottish friends.

None of them say 'monochrome': say 'black and white'. Some even had B&W TVs as children. Opinion of person I just asked (English) is that 'monochrome' would be very marked term in his dialect: would indicate either level of showing-off or technical usage. Default referent of 'The Monochrome Set' would be the band not a TV.

[V.I. Voltz]

I just picked up my K-3 iii Monochrome today. I’ll be ready to provide a full report in a week or two. I have used all the Leica Monochromes and a few other monochrome digital cameras too.

Your analyses always seem to ignore that in the 1990s and 2000s, when Kodak made the cutting edge dSLRs, there were several Monochrome dSLRs. I still have my Kodak DCS 760M, which remarkably still works. It has a lot of shortcomings, as early digitals did, but it was a great camera at the time. So worse than waiting, monochrome digital cameras appeared and then died out.

A quick look inside my K-3 iii Monochrome shows that the sensor was most likely made without a Bayer filter- it was not made with one that was then removed. Removal leaves traces that are absent from my camera’s sensor. This makes sense - Pentax would have ordered a run without the filter, which is much easier than pulling them off.

The most significant thing for users about a purpose built monochrome camera is firmware designed for non-colour input. This makes a huge difference, having used a number of converted cameras. The images just need much (much!) less manipulation to make them look good.

I really hope that Pentax continue with this camera, and this type of thinking. They can really carve a niche for themselves, and I like their history and approach.

Voltz

[Mistral75]

> "I suspect that this is in effect a limited-edition, one-off model, the sensor of which is a color sensor that's been stripped like any other custom conversion, rather than a sensor made to be monochrom direct from the fabricator, that could take advantage of economies of scale. (Note that the foregoing is speculation. I don't know.)"

The Pentax K-3 Mark III sensor is the 26MP Sony IMX571. Both the RGB and the monochrome versions of this sensor are available off the shelf from Sony Semiconductor Solutions.

[I haven't been able to confirm this independently, although Mistral75 might be right. The data sheet for the IMX571 doesn't make any mention of an achromat version and I haven't been able to find a different data sheet. I'm not sure I'm interested in investing a lot of time into chasing this down; it's how the camera performs that interests me mainly. But thanks for this lead. --Mike]

[robert e]

Found your dream camera in the nick of time. Love it!

I'm somewhat surprised that Ricoh's first monochrome digital camera is a Pentax and not a GR, what with the latter's strong street-photographer following, but I guess converting that little sensor would have cost too much, proportionally, and for too little gain.

[Joe Kashi]

Following up on my earlier comment about the Pentax Monochrome, I did a series of the same shot taken at increasing ISO settings.

These were DNG files processed in Lightroom 6.14 with zero noise reduction in the initial file imports. The first file was processed to taste as per my earlier Email and then those settings were pasted on to subsequent images and then further adjusted for best "exhibition" style look on a calibrated monitored. The lens was again the Tamron 17-50/2.8 zoom that earlier tests showed to be exceptionally sharp.

Files were pixel-peeped at 1:1 YMMV. I rated ISO files as to whether they were suitable for making large exhibition prints at the lower ISOs and traditional photojournalism at higher settings.

ISO 200 - no perciptable noise. Excellent acutance and tonal gradation

ISO 400, barely noticeable noise with luminance noise reduction (LNR) at 0. Lightroom detects that this is a native monochrome image and greys out the color noise reduction.

ISO 800 Very slightly more noise than ISO 400 at LNR 0, tonal gradation and edge acutance still very good.

ISO 1600 - Very slightly more noise than ISO 800 at LNR 0, tonal gradation and edge acutance still very good, but still good enough for medium-size exhibition prints.

ISO 3200 very fine grain, rather like Tri-X, gradation and edge acutance starting to suffer somewhat but still good. With LNR set to 20, smaller exhibition prints might still be possible. Gradation and tonal range starting to slip a bit, bright highlights starting to lose detail somewhat.

ISO 6400 noise becomes noticeable at 1:1. Edge acutance and fine detail are noticeably worse. However, the result is still better than Tri-X film at its best. LNR at 20

ISO 12800 Suitable for good quality "street photography" and photojournalism. LNR set to 20.

ISO 25600 slightly more noise and some acutance loss than ISP 12800 but still quite good enough for most BW routine uses. LNR set to 20.

Sharpness, tonal gradation, and edge acutance are well-retained to higher ISOs and seemingly subtly better than Bayer array sensors.

[Stephen S.]

Mistral75 is right: several "mono" astronomy cameras, as they are called in that field, use the monochrome Sony STARVIS IMX571BLR-J, which is what the K-3 III monochrome uses. It's manufactured without a Bayer RGB filter, so nothing needs to be stripped away. The Bayer "colour" version that the regular K-3 III uses is the Sony STARVIS IMX571BQR-J.

Many people wonder why Pentax chose the K-3 III for a monochrome version and not the K-1 II, or why not a Ricoh GR, and the simple fact that Sony does not offer off-the-shelf monochrome versions of the sensors used in those cameras is the most likely explanation.

[robert e]

@Craig: Interesting food for thought. In fact, what most people mean by "seeing" is a mostly psychological act anyway, at least according to neurologists and psychologists. Apparently what we see is only 20-30 percent sensory input and the rest we fill in. I'd assume photographers see with a different ratio, but I wonder if it's higher or lower.

Anyway, given that, it seems unremarkable for someone to see differently depending on the tools or process they use, including sensor or film type, printing paper and process, resolution, etc. I know I seem to see differently with a film camera vs a digital one, for instance. To my mind, that's no more or less arbitrary or whimsical than feeling that choosing how colors are mapped to a gray scale is more "honest" than burning and dodging. So imagine shooting with a BW sensor, which bakes that choice into the raw image, and tell me you wouldn't approach seeing any differently.

[Colin Dixon]

Colour is everything, black and white is, simply, more.

[Jeff]

Lost comment?

[Joe Kashi]

I was curious about how my new Pentax Monochrome would react to various traditional BW contrast filters because some initial images taken with an orange YA3 contrast filter seemed a bit soft and diffuse compared to the same images taken without a contrast filter. So, I did a bit of testing and comparison.

Standard full-color RGB sensor cameras can selectively darken or brighten differently-colored parts of a BW image converted from a full-color original RAW file by selectively editing the various color channels in post. This allows classic landscape visualizations like brilliant clouds juxtaposed on dark skies, a la' Ansel Adams.

In contrast, like BW film., a monochrome-sensor camera can only control differential contrast between variously-colored aspects of the original image by using traditional colored contrast filters like the classic red, orange, yellow, and green filters used for over a century by film photographers. They're equally appropriate for a monochrome sense digital camera.

Results:

New Hoya 67mm HMC multicoated filters were used.

The best image files were made without any filter in front of the lens and using contrast-detection Live-View autofocus on a tripod. These had the best sharpness, tonality, microcontrast, and edge acutance. No surprises there.

Neutrally-colored filters such as UV, ND8, and CPL showed only minimal image quality deficits compared to no filter shots, and any deficits were mostly correctable with Lightroom's clarity slider.

Strongly-colored yellow, orange and red contrast filters resulted in a perceptible drop in out-of-camera DNG RAW image sharpness, microcontrast, and acutance. This deficit was only partially correctable with the clarity slider in Lightroom 6.14, and increasingly less correctable as filter colors tended from yellow toward red.

Green filters were somewhere in between but closer to neutrally colored filter image file quality.

Through-the-lens exposure was generally quite consistent and good regardless of the filter used.

Predictably, the images made without any filter at all and using inherently more precise contrast-detection Live-View auto-focus were the sharpest and highest acutance images of the entire series. Phase-detection auto-focus image files had a slight but noticeable decrease in apparent acutance, more so with strongly-colored yellow, orange and red contrast filters.

Methodology was straightforward. All images were shot in DNG RAW format. I used the same Pentax Monochrome camera and same Tamron 17-50/2.8 lens as used previously. In prior lens tests, the Tamron was the sharpest of all tested lenses, and with very good tonal gradation and acutance. Tested lenses included Pentax Limited prime lenses.

Both phase-detection and contrast-detection images were made to control for dSLR front/back focus issues with phase-detection. There was only a minor improvement overall using Live-View contrast-detection, suggesting that front/back focus was not a significant issue with my monochrome Pentax and the Tamron lens.

I shot the classic textured flat rough-cut cedar wall, with the camera on a steady tripod, a very fast shutter speed, base ISO 200, and the lens set to medium aperture ( f/6.3) and medium focal length (e-36mm equiv.).

New Hoya multicoated 67mm filters were used as published tests by LensRentals indicate that these were very consistent and among the best available filters. Analysis of the image files definitely indicated that individual filter planar flatness or flare were not significant confounding factors.

Everything was processed and viewed in Adobe Lightroom 6.14, with no initial processing except a medium-contrast applied during import. Later, +36 clarity was added to test whether filter flare had any correctable impact. Everything was viewed and compared at 1:1 onscreen in Lightroom.