On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:01:56PM -0500, Zos Xavius wrote: > Would you buy it? There would be a lot to gain in resolution and > sensitivity by eliminating the color filter. Big bonuses if you tend > to shoot in black and white a great deal anyways. I realize the > downsides of having to use filters just like the old days, but really > I'm ok with that personally. Plus think of all the great lenses that > are not all that suitable for color, but work amazingly well in black > and white. Just some wishful thinking. Even a B/W K-5 II would be > pretty cool.
When my only DSLR was my K100, if the question was, "would I buy a monochrome K100 to get a stop better low light performance?" I might have said yes. Would I be willing to give up the benefits of the bayer filter now, for more resolution on a K-3? I doubt it. But, you are asking the wrong question. The question you should ask is "What would you pay for a monochrome K-3?" Because, at $30, or even $300, almost everyone on this list would probably buy one if it were available today. At $1,300 one or two might. Do note that even as it sits, there are those that don't find the added resolution of the K-3 to be a compelling upgrade over the K-5 at the same, or less sensor performance in other areas. The K-3 does seem to continue the Pentax trend of alternating improving the sensor with improving performance in other areas. Once sensor resolution, at similar performance per sensel, goes past several times the diffraction limit of lenses, there might be some very interesting things that could be done mathematically to recover lost info, whether it's a Lytro like trick to compensate for lens imperfections, or some mathemagic to do an inverse convolution on the diffraction and recover lost detail. -- Larry Colen [email protected] http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
