>> digital, and the ability to desaturate colour images in editing >> programs, and I don't really see a high end mono only digital as being >> a demand item.
>No, I don't think so either. Or, it would at least have to some kind of >setup where the same camera could use B&W *and* colour sensors. But I >guess the situation might be somewhat different in a few years' time >when (I'm assuming) the price of a DSLR has dropped to a fraction of >what it is today. I can see having a B&W mode that basically ignored the bayer grid, but I can't see any reason to make a B&W-only DSLR for the trivial savings or the theoretical increase in quality given the ever-decreasing price and ever-increasing quality of DSLRs. I notice that the foveon sensor, which has the same theoretical advantage of a B&W-only sensor without bayer grid, has gone over like a lead balloon. Sure, the Sigma camera didn't help, but if it were really that much better... >OTOH, *maybe* there could be niche markets that would justify the >development of such a camera, at least if it may be done at a low cost >via updates of existing models, even though the demand wouldn't be very >high. I've been wondering why for instance the press doesn't want B&W >cameras (or maybe they really do?). But perhaps the newspaper prints >have such low quality anyway that using somewhat sub-optimal image data >doesn't make a difference, and of course, you do see an increasing >amount of colour photos in the papers... The original Nikon D1 series had a "B&W" mode. It captured color images (i.e. 3 channels, full file size) but without any actual color. The primary goal appears to have been to allow people who knew their output would be in B&W to see it in B&W on the camera-back screen. There used to be filters to mimic the same effect for pre-visualization. The Canon 20D has a B&W mode too, with "color filter" effects built into the postprocessing. I like B&W enough that this was one of the things that convinced me to buy the 20D and not the *istD. Color catches the eye, and sells newspapers. Newspapers are desperately trying to use as much color photography as they can (it's also expensive to print...) to appeal to readers. This is one of the things that drove newspapers to digital, since color film was a lot more expense and hassle than B&W. Very few photojournalists are big enough stars to work in B&W because they want to, even though I suspect many of us would like to at times precisely because color can be distracting. B&W offers different graphic possibilities, and also a level of abstraction. My girlfriend was only allowed a B&W TV as a child so as to prevent her from thinking that it was "real"! And yes, newspaper quality demands aren't high. I'm using a 2.77 MP Nikon D1H and normally DOWNSIZING the photos for use in a tabloid-size newspaper. One reason that newspapers went digital early is that the theoretical technical superiority of film is unexploited at smaller print sizes. Film is also comparatively weaker at the higher ISOs actually used in journalism. The limits of digital imaging, especially cheap digital imaging, are not a major issue for most users since most people simply don't NEED the quality of Fuji 50D or Kodachrome (including some people who still use the stuff, I suspect...) In my experience, digital photography actually increased the apparent quality of newspaper color photographs compared to film. DJE
