A digital camera that only shoots B&W

[Tom Kershaw]

There was a time when I would have considered a Monochrome X100 style camera. In fact I still think Fuji should make one... But $8.3k for a 35mm camera is just wacka-doodle Leica nonsense.

No Leica lenses yet for your Panasonic S1R then?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

No Leica lenses yet for your Panasonic S1R then?

Hah! Basically all the lenses are fantastic optics. The Panasonic glass has better AF than the 1st gen ART lenses. The Leica L lenses are pure bragging rights. My Sigma ART 50/1.4 is tack sharp at 1.4 even in a 47mp file. So a Summilux is tack-sharperier? Sometimes I figure people delude themselves into thinking the Leica glass is worth it, but then I have to remember that for them the cost is just relative. What they consider expensive is not what I consider expensive. *shrug*

 

[Paul Howell]

It's the law of diminishing returns. Outside of very long telephotos, the first $500 to $2000 depending on the lens, normal prime to zooms buys a lot of lens. After that you start to pay for very little in the way of functional improvement. For less than a $200 I got a Tonkia 400 5.6, a used Mintola 400 F 4 is around 3 grand, that a lot of money for one stop. I have an Sigma 50 1.4 arts lens, it is really good, then again my Konica 50 1.7 is as sharp, but the Simga has somewhat better coatings and better contrast, it is work a $600 difference? (Of course it is, the Konica is of course MF, only meters in stop down mode on my Sony E bodies).

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

It's the law of diminishing returns. Outside of very long telephotos, the first $500 to $2000 depending on the lens, normal prime to zooms buys a lot of lens. After that you start to pay for very little in the way of functional improvement. For less than a $200 I got a Tonkia 400 5.6, a used Mintola 400 F 4 is around 3 grand, that a lot of money for one stop. I have an Sigma 50 1.4 arts lens, it is really good, then again my Konica 50 1.7 is as sharp, but the Simga has somewhat better coatings and better contrast, it is work a $600 difference? (Of course it is, the Konica is of course MF, only meters in stop down mode on my Sony E bodies).

It's get a little more complex than pure optics these days. The AF motor technology makes a big difference in performance. The Panasonic is quiet and extremely reliable. The Sigma ART is pretty snappy too but in video mode it makes audible tick-tick-ticks if you try to say, do a vlog and the camera is set to eye AF. From a purely reliability and technology standpoint the Panasonics are the best buy. I wouldn't trust an AF Leica lens...at all?

 

[jtk]

Just for fun, set your digital camera for black-only (or whatever setting it uses) and shoot your usual kind of stuff. Then print that. What's the point of shooting B&W if you can't control it and don't print ?

 

[wahiba]

Best deal is to for an older digital compact that still has a proper viewfinder and then just convert the colour image to monochrome. Such cameras, considering they have a proper viewfinder are currently pretty cheap so I suggest getting a couple or so. Fujis are pretty good but you need an XD card. Sometimes they come with the camera.
My first proper digital was a Fuji 202 2.0 MP camera! and I used it the other day to take a picture to be converted to monochrome to compare with the results of a pin hole camera. Pinhole was a disaster so it is back to the drawing board, but the pictures from the Fuji were fine.
I have a Fuji A400 and a Canon A430, both 4.0MP often used for quick pictures.