Jump to content

Time for a Fuji Monochrome Camera? Too late?


Heccie Thump

Recommended Posts

I have seen discussions in the past about whether Fuji should bring out a Monochrome only camera to go toe-to-toe with Leica, and I am one of those who think they should.  I would love to have a mono specific body that will take my lenses.  I already shoot a lot of my pictures using the Acros simulation and love the results, but having a specific body designed from the bottom up to take mono would be a step up.

However, with the recent release of the Pentax K3 Monochrome camera I am starting to think that Fuji may have missed the boat.  Even if they decide to go down that line, by the time they produce the camera and ramp up production and marketing I suspect that a large portion of the market may be already invested in other models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be liable to be a very niche product. Probably not worth Fuji setting up the production line. I would like the Pentax camera to be a success but I don't think that they will sell many units. That is no problem for Leica, who have always specialised in low volume high price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it'd be very neat. High pixel count and no demosaicing. I'd want one!

 

But I agree it might be hard to make a go of it, a niche product. And of course I'd want it configured like the X-T cameras with traditional controls on top!

Wow, I shot a lot of Pan-X, Plus-X and Tri-X. So much I was winding my own cartridges, and developing them two at a time back-to-back on the wire spool, the way Minor White taught.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

In ye olde days of film I had to carry two bodies if I wanted to shoot in  colour and mono. A right pain in the back. Medium format was better as the camera had interchangeable film backs. But would I want to back to that? Not really. Only if the gains were more than the loss. I am not convinced that they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2023 at 4:23 AM, jlmphotos said:

I would LOVE a Medium Format GFX Monochrome camera.  I'd be FIRST in line.  And, I'll add that if it has the body of the 50r so much the better!

I am with you on that Medium Format GFX Monochrome camera, traditional dials, 50 or 100MP - oh my what a dream camera, slightly less boxy and smaller body than 50r - I would be VERY happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I wouldn't be surprised if they do. However, I can't imagine how they would go about choosing which camera to base it on. Whichever they went for they would upset many many people by choosing the "wrong" camera.

I would assume it's just a case of using an existing sensor without a filter, and developing firmware, but that's probably highly simplistic, but if Ricoh/Pentax can do it and think it's worthwhile then I'm sure Fujifilm can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I'd also be interested in adapting Fuji lenses to some other monochrome camera. They make them for telescopes, for example, and there was one on Amazon for $300 that I contemplated getting just to experiment. It wouldn't have all sorts of things the Fuji cameras have, but it'd be true monochrome. I could also adapt simple lenses for ultraviolet and infrared photography (the Fuji lenses likely have significant limits beyond visible light, especially ultraviolet, and their chromatic aberration might be awful, as they're not designed for that use).

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Astigmatism said:

I'd also be interested in adapting Fuji lenses to some other monochrome camera. They make them for telescopes, for example, and there was one on Amazon for $300 that I contemplated getting just to experiment. It wouldn't have all sorts of things the Fuji cameras have, but it'd be true monochrome. I could also adapt simple lenses for ultraviolet and infrared photography (the Fuji lenses likely have significant limits beyond visible light, especially ultraviolet, and their chromatic aberration might be awful, as they're not designed for that use).

That sounds like fun.

This might interest you, the comments to the article offer some low cost approaches:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3980259504/the-magic-of-ultraviolet-nature-and-macro-photography

But, are you sure about the lenses’ transmittance being the problem? Film cameras and a lot of CCD based digital astro cameras typically need a UV filter somewhere in the image train, usually screwed onto the front of the lens. Most CMOS digital cameras have a UV filter as part of the protective “glass” just in front of the sensor, so putting one on the lens is unnecessary. Hence, it is not a concern as much for the lens makers.

https://petapixel.com/uv-filter-guide/

Please post some results!

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2023 at 12:24 PM, jerryy said:

But, are you sure about the lenses’ transmittance being the problem?

Well, yes and no. There's going to be upper and lower wavelength limits somewhere. They could be transmission limits, or extreme out-of-focus limits because chromatic aberration has blown up so far outside the visual range. Or they could be sensor limits, that is, an image detector usually needs some minimum photon energy to detect the photon (an exception being thermal energy sensors such as thermopiles or pyroelectric sensors such as the ones used in thermal cameras).

One exploration I pondered would be getting a narrow f number spherical first surface mirror, such as were common in slow Newtonian telescopes of perhaps 50 years ago, where they'd not bother to figure the mirror into a paraboloid, relying on the narrow f number to make the image useable instead. I could use such a mirror to turn a sensor into a macro camera by putting the mirror one radius away (so two focal lengths away) and placing the sensor and the object being photographed as close as possible to each other. That way there'd be no transmission limit in the optics, and only whatever was built into the sensor, and of course the air path and the reflectivity of the mirror.

We have a chicken and egg conundrum here. I'm not sure what wavelengths would be fun to play with, so I don't know the system requirements.

Here's a paperback I got recently that is somewhat of a guide:

https://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Ultraviolet-Photography-NearUltraviolet-Adventures/dp/1682031241/ref=sr_1_1?crid=P633OKDU8CB&keywords=ultraviolet+photography&qid=1701010570&s=books&sprefix=ultraviolet+photography%2Cstripbooks%2C88&sr=1-1

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Astigmatism said:

One exploration I pondered would be getting a narrow f number spherical first surface mirror, such as were common in slow Newtonian telescopes of perhaps 50 years ago, where they'd not bother to figure the mirror into a paraboloid, relying on the narrow f number to make the image useable instead. I could use such a mirror to turn a sensor into a macro camera by putting the mirror one radius away (so two focal lengths away) and placing the sensor and the object being photographed as close as possible to each other. That way there'd be no transmission limit in the optics, and only whatever was built into the sensor, and of course the air path and the reflectivity of the mirror.

We have a chicken and egg conundrum here. I'm not sure what wavelengths would be fun to play with, so I don't know the system requirements.

Before you jump into the fun and agony of grinding your own glass, you might be able to test some of your thoughts by getting a few mirror lenses and seeing how well the thought meets the reality. A lot companies carry new and used mirror lenses of various focal lengths and aperture / f-stops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • One point to note. If you have a camera with IBIS and you don't set the lens length through the menus it can play havoc with image stabilisation and make it difficult to hold the subject steady. Especially noticeable if the camera is told it's a telephoto but you actually have a wide fitted.  You can use A mode too. Set the aperture on the lens and the camera will compensate with the shutter speed /iso.
    • I'm using the following lenses on my Fujis with adapters: Rollei 50mm HFT f/1.8 (Zeiss made under license), Rolleinar 135mm f/2.8 and Rolleinar 200mm f/3.5 all used with a QBM to FX adapter.  I also use a Sigma 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, Tokina SD 70-200 f/4.5-5.6, Minolta 35-70 f/3.5 (Leica Elmarit Vario in effect) and Minolta 100-309 f/5.6 all with an MD to FX adapter.    As well there's a Tamron SP90 f/2.8 used with a Nikon adapter and 28mm pentacon f/2.8, Horizont 35mm f/2.8, Avenar 135mm f/2.8 and Pentacon 200mm f/4 I can use with an M42-FX adapter.  Finally a Mamiya Sekor 80mm and 110mm f/2.8 lens with a 645-FX adapter.  The Rollei 50mm is gorgeous. Lovely smooth focus and beautiful tones coupled to a lovely smooth bokeh. Other favourites are the Rolleinar 135 and Minolta 35-70 Macro. 
    • Been an intermittent Fuji user for many years starting with an S2 Pro then an S5 before getting a bridge camera for my other half. In between Fuji I've been a big Nikon user with D2X and D3 amongst others. Finally left the Nikon camp and moved to Fuji when I went mirrorless opting for a used X-T4 which needed a friend so bought an X-E2.  Love the X-E2 for its simplicity and near point and shoot pocketable nature coupled to its ability to accept any of the X-T4 lenses.    In terms of lenses I use an 18-55 and 18-135 Fuji, a TTArtisans 27mm (AF), 35mm f/1.4 (MF), 7.5mm f/2 fisheye (MF) and a Samyang 12mm f/2 AF. I also use old vintage lenses via adapters. Specifically Pentagon 28mm f/2..8 (M42 thread), Rollei 50mm f/1.8 (Zeiss rebadge), Rolleinar 135mm f/2 8, Rolleinar 200mm f/3.5, Sigma 18-70 f/3.5-4 5 MD fit, Minolta 35-70mm f/3.5, Tokina 70-210 f/4.5-5.6 (MD fit), Minolta 100-300 f/5.6 and a Nikon fit Tamron SP90 macro lens.  I still shoot film using my Minolta SRT100X and Rollei SL35 too and have an old Ilford Sportsman currently loaded with a roll of HP5. Also still have Maniya 645 TL Pro with 80 and 110 f/2.8 lenses (and 645 to FX adapter for them). Been into photography since the mid 70s when I was introduced to it at school and it stuck with me on and off ever since. Did a few years of wedding photography but it just turned me away from doing any photography for 10 years or more and all my kit sat in a cupboard until recently after which all the Nikon stuff was sold.   So that's me. Reigniting a passion for photography all over again. 
    • Hello. I have recently bought a black magic video assist monitor and experimenting with f-log. The problem im having is that I no longer have SD (jpeg) + HDMI F-log as I want to record in jpeg on the card and f-log from my monitor. If anyone knows why its disappeared I would like to know how to put it back on the menu. Thank you I Have  SD + HDMI SD F-log + HDMI F-log SD F-log2 + HDMI F-log2  SD HLG + HDMI HLG
×
×
  • Create New...