Topic: Wonderful article that I think you'll enjoy n

[LT]

Good article. http://leicaphilia.com/why-a-mechanical-film-camera-in-a-digital-age/

And, the m8 cost how much? A paperweight you say? Unbeleivable!

[Bryan]

Interesting article Leon, thanks for sharing.  Towards the end where the author writes about the "desire for the hyper-real" in digital photography, I can't help but think of the popularity of all the editing software that makes digital look like film.  I guess that's another way for people to escape the "hyper-real without buying film.  Maybe they don't realize film is still available, the author did say Kodak is out of business.

I did like what the author wrote about manufaturers deliberately introducing technological obsolescence.  When you look at most modern products you can see it in just about everything.  Appliances that used to last for several decades now won't even last one.  Anything with a computer chip will not last and they put them in products that don't even need them, like toasters and washing machines.  They worked fine without them.  The problem is not just that manufacturers are doing this, most consumers are not willing or able to purchase products built to last, they tend to be way too expensive for most.  The biggest problem is that this can't be sustainable, so many of the earths resources are being wasted at a faster and faster pace as these items are being replaced.  My Kodak Autographic built in 1914 still works, I would be surprised if any digital cameras built in 2014 will still be working in 2114. 

[tkmedia]

Maybe they don't realize film is still available, the author did say Kodak is out of business.

I didn't read the whole article... the mention of Kodak in the beginning was for the digital sensors they provided leica for the M8.

[jojonas~]

"Wonderful article that I think you'll enjoy" ooh, clickbait

good read so thanks for that. I liked this bit:

Technologically and functionally, mechanical film cameras resist
obsolescence in a way newer digital cameras cannot,
because they are, at base, simple.

[hookstrapped]

Makes a strong case on many fronts.  Enjoyed it.

[Late Developer]

Great article, Leon and thanks for sharing it.

The points made are, fundamentally, similar to those I made in a somewhat "enegetic" exchange of views I had with a digital evangelist from a local camera club a couple of years ago. Personally, I have no axe to grind with digital cameras as I enjoy using them as well as film cameras.  Trying to have a conversation with this guy was hard work as he he just kept spouting "facts" like "the human eye can't resolve more than 300dpi - therefore, what's point of shooting film or using chemical processes to produce prints??"

We'd be fools to deny they have advantages in certain respects; immediacy, technical excellence, variable ISO, clean / non-chemical processing (especially if you have no darkroom), etc.

However, the Nikon F6 / FM2n / FM3A, Pentax LX, Canon F1-N / EOS-1 are still top of the shop when it comes to 35mm and only sourcing replacement parts causes issues.  Actually, the F6 is still in production. Incremental improvements in sensors isn't a non-issue with film cameras and I think it's true to say that most film users prefer the look of film-based photos - or there wouldn't seem to be any real point using film otherwise.

My friend (who is a professional photographer and runs a camera shop) gets frustrated with the major camera manufacturers when he has to approach them for costings to repair defective digital cameras that are out of their guarantee period.  The reason? The repair is often more expensive than the camera's original cost and the cost of a more highly specified replacement. 

I might be wrong but I wonder whether camera manufacturers really want to repair any of their cheaper kit and having to perpetually download and instal firmware to remove / reduce the impact of glitches seems a sad indictment of the fact that the product was released without having been developed / tested properly.

You only need to look at product life-cycles to see that (for one example) Nikon used to bring out new models of film cameras, on average, about once every 8-10 years.  These days, technology allows (requires?) companies to release updated / replacement products every 2-3 years, maximum.

[mcduff]

A colleague had just bought the latest Leica digital camera (having migrated from a top of the line nikon full frame DSLR). When he heard I shoot film (on my ancient cameras) he winces and says "ouch! Film is so expensive". Haha. I love cognitive dissonance ;-)

[zapsnaps]

I love that ' Digital cameras lack this bodily satisfaction'.

[zapsnaps]

In answer to Leon's question 'how much is an M8?', I've just had a peek on FleaBay. There is one - in nice condition, to be just to the seller, at £2999.99. Or 3 grand in old money. Gulp. I have the R8 (widely thought of by purists to be the 'wrong' system, but hey - I had an M6 & didn't get on with it) will last forever & there is one available for £383. That's gotta be a bargain.

[LT]

and how much when brand new fresh out of the Leica factory? And now you cant repair the damn things if the sensor or the viewing screen dies. They are essentially a disposable camera. That must sting if you invested all your hard earned cash in buying one.

[mickld]

>They are essentially a disposable camera.
They are. But an equally concerning issue is how to ensure the long term storage and archiving of digital images. I was listening to the This Week In Photo podcast yesterday and it was dedicated to the extraordinary lengths the guests go to in order to manage their archives. And the complexity of the problem rises as the size of the archive increases over time. I suppose it affects us too, as most of us scan I assume, but at least we have the original negs to fall back on.

Daniel Milnor writes about the topic well.
http://www.smogranch.com/2014/05/21/archiving-digital-an-update/

[timor]

and how much when brand new fresh out of the Leica factory? And now you cant repair the damn things if the sensor or the viewing screen dies. They are essentially a disposable camera. That must sting if you invested all your hard earned cash in buying one.

Leica probably could be repaired (for $XXX of course). The high end digital cameras will probably last for a long time. My S1 Pro still works well (just 3 MP and dust on the sensor is not that sexy any more) despite age and heavy use in wedding photo business. But in most cases I agree with you ! And it is the new technology, not a broken mechanisms, which make the digital camera a disposable one. Same with phone, watch, tablet, laptop, TV set and so on. But it has more to do with social changes introduced and implanted in us by industry (endorsed by governments) making this products.

[jharr]

I found the article to be less about the obsolescence issue and more about the experience of shooting film v. digital. It is completely different in "type" as opposed to just in "degree". I'm glad that there are people out there writing some thought provoking articles on this topic instead of just raging against the digital machine. Thanks for the link Leon.

[gothamtomato]

Maybe they don't realize film is still available, the author did say Kodak is out of business.

They don't. I hear it all the time. People are shocked to find out that they can still buy film and get it processed.