Hi, /p/. I really like black and white photography, but I'm

File: 1478641122570.jpg (34KB, 500x238px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x238px

blatant troll thread

Get a normal camera, convert to b&w.

Much more powerful as you have control over each colour channel. Monochrom is gimmickmeme as fuck.

>>2962778
>Should I consider getting into film instead

totally.

the thing with film is that you keep paying for your materials, but its so little that you dont feel it. like paying 10 bucks a month for a roll pack isnt gonna gut your budget, is it? get a spotmatic for barebones operation, an xa if you want pocketability, or the meme ae-1 if you like the canon logo.

just do it.

>>2962784
>Get a normal camera, convert to b&w.

now thats some pleb advice.

the monochrom is just a normal camera with a red filter on the lens which causes it to only take in red light

open up a photo in photoshop and hide everything but red, it's black and white

you can do that to any camera if you just put a red filter in front of it

>>2962778
>Should I consider getting into film instead?
If your try on dedicated b&w is not just an exploration, I bet film is equal or more expensive with buying a cheap digital camera and convert the photos to b&w. You could even shoot in b&w style preset to see b&w previews and even have a gray-scaled evf, the saved raw still contains all color information.

Exercise 1:
During his Venice trip of 10 days Mr. O'Sullivan shot about 72 exposures a day with its digital camera. What would it cost, if instead of his digital camera Mr. O'Sullivan took a film camera loaded with rather cheap black and white 35mm film that costs $4 and typically comes with 36 exposures each roll?

Exercise 2:
In each case, the photographs are neither edited nor printed. Try to set a task similar to exercise 1, considering further consequential cost.
For an advanced task: Film is not yet developed nor digitized .

>>2962794
>the monochrom is just a normal camera
>you can do that to any camera if you just put a red filter in front of it
by which one drops information for blue and green photo diodes. That'll bring the same resolution with 1/4 of the sensor area, if I'm correct. What are the consequences? Is it underexposure? If yes by how many EV?

>>2962795
>Mr. O'Sullivan the digicuck
>cucked
>awkward
>big ugly dslr makes him look like a filthy tourist
>takes 5.000 photos on his meme trip because of infinite photos
>comes home only to realise the sd card got corrupted and all the digisnaps got lost forever
>hangs himself

>Mr. O'Sullivan the film bro
>made the right choice, feels good and comfy
>carefully frames and waits for the perfect moment before shooting his precious film, ensuring every picture is good and memorable
>ogled by hipster qts
>mired by respectable gentlemen
>comes home and as he develops the rolls discovers all the gems he didnt figure would look so good as photos

File: mr_osullivan.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

>>2962808
But as we all know, imagination is better than reality.

>>2962803
by like a third so you have to expose three times

>>2962778

Just fucking buy an X-Pro2 and shoot in Acros or convert raws to BW.

There's your cheap Lecia.

>>2962829
>Its a fujishill comes out of the woodwork episode

>>2962784
Better yet, get a sigma with and "hack" it so only the top layer works(forget if it's red or blue)

>>2962838
in the newer sigmas aren't the individual layers smaller now to the point of being effectively the same as a standard bayer filtered sensor?

tearing the ir filter and bayer filter from a normal cmos or ccd would be better imo and then you can use rawtherapee to skip the debayering process for sharp aliased goodness, maybe. i'm not sure how it would look actually but you know i'm super curious.

File: 8130309119_bba2304a72_h.jpg (580KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1600x1067px

>>2962842
so bright..

>>2962842
The top (blue?) layer is still full resolution.

But yea, the two lower ones are interpolated in a 4:1:1 manner in the Quattro series. Still better than Bayer colors, but not as much as it used to be :V

>>2962829
this
and dont listen to one like >>2962833
theyre just sonycucks who are jelous because they cant into rangefinder and awesome film sims.

>>2962858
t. fujimaggot.

>>2962858
>xpro
>rangefinder

i want off

>>2962842
http://www.ultrasomething.com/2014/05/sigma-vs-nerd-part-2/
Here's what I was referring to. Not really a hack, just included in the sigma software. The blue layer is the top one, therefore the one with the less noise. Each layer also has different tonality (like b&w film with color filters) so it can be interesting to play around with the ratio of layers. The noise is also very grain like so there's also that. You just need to put up with the shitty sigma hardware and software but the results speak for themselves.

File: tumblr_lkdlyiey3y1qcw9y0o1_500.jpg (34KB, 416x347px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 416x347px

>>2962778
You can get a film Leica for less than a DSLR, you can get a film SLR for less than a memory card, and you can get B&W film for less than a Starfucks coffee.

So yeah look into film if you dig B&W

>>2962788
>Implying an XA isn't as big a meme as a AE-1

>>2962930

its a meme that delivers its reputation. the ae1 is soccermom tier meme.

I think you need to ask yourself why you're looking for a dedicated b/w digicam in the first place and why other digital (evern with physical filters) won't deliver the same result for you, because they should be able to. Could you please expand on why you're wanting a /dedicated/ b/w digicam?

Either way I'm going to call you a digipleb and tell you to shoot film. Find a camera you like, find a lens you like, buy a pack of filters, buy a processing tank and chemicals. Finally try out different B/W film then move on to purchasing in bulk.
It's always going to take longer for you to process your film than it is to do a bit of raw conversion. It's also still going to require you buying a scanner or a digicam to digitize anyway.

>>2962829
Fujifag here. Why the fuck would he do this compared to just using any other digital camera and using a custom profile on jpg?
>>2962869
prepare to be triggered:
>Digital Rangefinder

>>2962778
L E I C A M 8
E
I
C
A
M
8

The poor mans M monochrom.

Sigma Quattro with blue channel dimed.