Why a Mechanical Film Camera in a Digital Age?

[Jorgen Udvang]

For those who haven't read this yet, here is some perspective on what was and what is. Very well written:

Why a Mechanical Film Camera in a Digital Age? | Leicaphilia

 

[GrahamWelland]

I highly recommend watching the programme "The Lightbulb Conspiracy" about planned obsolescence and the 'need' to maintain a market for new & replacement products.

I agree about the notion of film camera longevity although it's not without the certain irony that some films can no longer be produced or processed (Polaroid / Kodachrome). Ditto the obsolescence of many of the best film scanners too.

 

[Leigh]

I've long held the opinion that digital cameras exist solely for the purpose of emptying one's wallet.

One need only observe the ridiculous frenzies expressed here on GetDPI over every new model.

Those are not based on the idea of making better pictures, but rather on the chest-beating "I have the latest and most expensive" juvenality.

- Leigh

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I've long held the opinion that digital cameras exist solely for the purpose of emptying one's wallet.

One need only observe the ridiculous frenzies expressed here on GetDPI over every new model.

Those are not based on the idea of making better pictures, but rather on the chest-beating "I have the latest and most expensive" juvenality.

- Leigh

It's funny, isn't it, how cameras like the Nikon F and Leica M3 could be state-of-the-art for more than a decade, producing some of the most iconic photos known to man, while now, nothing is worthy of consideration unless it was launched this year and shoots a minimum of 11 fps at 400k ISO with hundreds of AF points to aid the failing vision of the photographer?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I highly recommend watching the programme "The Lightbulb Conspiracy" about planned obsolescence and the 'need' to maintain a market for new & replacement products.

I agree about the notion of film camera longevity although it's not without the certain irony that some films can no longer be produced or processed (Polaroid / Kodachrome). Ditto the obsolescence of many of the best film scanners too.

Seen it and it confirmed my impression of how the world works. My revenge is to drive a 17 year old car, the cheapest model that was available at the time of its launch

 

[alajuela]

Seen it and it confirmed my impression of how the world works. My revenge is to drive a 17 year old car, the cheapest model that was available at the time of its launch

Maybe you can get one with 3 on the tree, , a suicide knob to help with the absence of power steering, non radial tires, with drum brakes, and maybe you can get optional heating. Just like my old Chevy Panel 235 straight six, or VW. And if you really want something modern, opt for the AM radio.

We can all pine away for the "simple good old days' speaking for myself, my Nikon F yes the one that had the light meter on top - sits on the shelf and next it are 2 rolls of Fuji Acros and two rolls of tri - X. i look at it once in a while with very fond memories, but give me auto iso on digital any day of the week.

The only area where film has has any attraction for me is 8 X 10 and access to a dark room.

YMMV

Phil

 

[Leigh]

There's a popular story in the Baltimore area of a famous photographer who was always winning awards.

Of course, he had a collection of nice equipment with which to take photos.

His colleagues finally got fed up, stole his gear, and replaced it with a Kodak Brownie.

He happily took the Brownie out, shot some photos, and won some more awards.

All the fancy gizmos in the world may make taking pictures faster, easier, more convenient.

But they won't make the photos better.

Either you're a photographer or you're not.

And note that "photographer" and "graphic artist" are not in any way synonymous.

- Leigh

 

[fotografz]

Thanks for posting this Jorgen. I wish more people would chime in on threads like this because the minutia driven threads are getting close to some sort of mental illness:banghead:

I find it interesting how indisputably true polar opinions on this subject actually are. We can be cynical from each perspective, but each is informed from experiences that skirt reality in favor of a rosy outlook.

My observations regarding the driving force behind what is referred to as "Obsolescence":

Lets face it, long-lived photographic mechanical wonders, some of which were passed down from one generation to another, where assaulted on two major fronts: All communication media became digital and forced the commercial transition to in-camera digital capture … and the immediacy of the internet and cell phones overwhelmingly forced consumer transition to digital. Slim pickings after you subtract all that.

The dual charms of the great film cameras are the tactile feel of using them for decades, and the film aesthetic. The tactile aspect is still supreme and there is something to be said about using a camera for a long time in terms of mastery rather than endless hours fussing with new tech every five minutes … yet the imaging part has fast become an orphan.

Progress on that front was never paid attention to as all R&D efforts went to the emerging competitive digital arena. Film technology available to the consumer basically stopped developing and some has gone bye-bye. Or, remember e-film? It promised to allow use of the wonderfully tactile mechanical cameras we already owned. With today's miniaturization and new sensor tech it seems it could have been … coulda, woulda, shoulda … didn't.

No one solved the film to image, or film to digital post processing issue, effectively leaving it to the tedious tasks of yesteryear, which many recall with 10ND Rosy glasses. Granted, some revel in the old PP ways as a "slow boat to China" method of enjoying photography … which makes it a shrinking market unsupportive of any manufacturing advancements that would attract new users in great enough numbers.

On the other hand, after a few decades of digital upgrades and a Tsunami of images flashing before our eyes at rocket sled speed … the cacophony of mediocrity is astounding because it takes little effort to post the mundane … there is no buffer to weed out lazy photography … anyone can upchuck any photo that came out decently, and tout the corner sharpness and acuity of their latest "digital" lens acquisition. It seems like few ask themselves why they took this picture in the first place, let alone show it.

The there is the cost of staying current … which has been like a mugger that keeps returning to rob you every few years. Hey You! Stick 'em up! Here's a new sensor that makes your current one crap … oh, by the way those old lenses suck with this new sensor, you'll need new ones. See ya again in a little while"

I chuckled at the POV that some old stuff is charming. I just sunk the equivalent of a Leica len$ into a 10 year old Volvo CX90 to breathe another 10 years into it. We bought a Lexus ES350 not just for all the tech, but because of its reputation for longevity (My sister has one with over 250,000 miles that runs like a top). I have a Dulat toaster that is almost 30 years old, looks like a '57 Buick and still works fine … just like our 20 year old Sub-Zero Fridge.

However, a 10 or 20 year old car, a 30 year old toaster, and a 20 year old fridge are terribly inefficient, and in the case of the car more likely to kill you if in a bad wreak (there is a lot of crash avoidance tech in my Lexus and so many airbags that you'd be like the Michelin Man in a crash). So, I think those analogies do not apply to the discussion of cameras very well because efficiency and safety aren't germane.

- Marc

 

[GrahamWelland]

Marc,

:thumbs: doesn't quite cut it. A very eloquent discussion regarding the rationality of film/mechanical cameras vs digital detritus if ever I've read one.

Regarding the more practical life experiences, I'm all for driving a vehicle with LESS electronics that can fail, toasters with microprocessors with engineered in obsolescence to fail in five years, non-stick frying pans that'll delaminate within 6-7 years etc etc. "Progress" they call it but I'd rather be the King Canute on my throne and the incoming tide myself.

However, with all that said, if I wanted a camera that would produce results in any light, at any speed, with any exposure in any situation, I wouldn't hesitate to reach for my Nikon Df and my ancient AIS glass (or modern AF lenses if that floats your boat).

 

[fotografz]

Marc,

:thumbs: doesn't quite cut it. A very eloquent discussion regarding the rationality of film/mechanical cameras vs digital detritus if ever I've read one.

Regarding the more practical life experiences, I'm all for driving a vehicle with LESS electronics that can fail, toasters with microprocessors with engineered in obsolescence to fail in five years, non-stick frying pans that'll delaminate within 6-7 years etc etc. "Progress" they call it but I'd rather be the King Canute on my throne and the incoming tide myself.

However, with all that said, if I wanted a camera that would produce results in any light, at any speed, with any exposure in any situation, I wouldn't hesitate to reach for my Nikon Df and my ancient AIS glass (or modern AF lenses if that floats your boat).

I have to admit, I had to look up "King Canute" :ROTFL:

I do think your glasses are a wee bit tinted rosy regarding the infallibility of the mechanical, and overly pessimistic of modern engineering … but that's the personal slant isn't it?

What is perplexing is that there does seem to be a market for modern products (even with electronics) that are intuitively simple and built and/or over-speced that few manufacturers seem to cater to. I know for a fact that a fair amount of people like the notion of over-built even if there is less intent to keep something forever. It speaks to a psychologic longing for some sense of permanence in a temporary world.

Leica is capitalizing on that to some degree, but it is a lot to pay for the pleasure of no LCD or some stainless steel version of the M. Most of it is still electronic and certainly NOT over-built to a higher spec inside.

The wily manufacturers do cater to the illusion of permanence with the "retro" looking products designed to evoke that longing … but the functional guts have little to do with that promise. "Looking like" and "being like" are two different things altogether.

IMO, far to many digital cameras are designed for the tech obsessed, and less so for photographers more interested in simply expressing themselves … so the manufacturers vie for bragging rights as to who has crammed the most functional buttons into the smallest space. I suppose that happens because the tech obsessed are the ones longing for the next thing even as they've just laid hands on a current version … they are where the money is I suppose.

I still hate the Sony A7R because if you don't use it every day, or you use other cameras, you have to stop to think about how to do even something relatively simple. "Now which button did what again? Wana switch from "effects on" to "effects off" for periodic use of lighting? Uh, what menu heading was that buried in?" It is such horse manure to deal with that when all you want to do is take a "freaking foto".

- Marc

 

[rayyan]

Not even an attempt to talk about the longevity of cameras or other gadgets, but somehow connected I feel.

The biggest manufacturers of Cameras, currently, are Japan and the Republic of Korea. I am talking about consumer products here. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Samsung and whoever else churning out digital cams with ever ' higher, bigger, better ' specs than the other.

However, I was in Tokyo a couple of years back in April, the Cherry Blossom season there. And an event in itself. I, too, joined the thousands and poured into the parks, gardens etc.

There were all shapes and sizes of cameras there. But what surprised me was the
large ( very large number ) of enthusiasts, professionals, and even young ones merrily using their film cameras.

Recently, I was in Seoul. I posted a snap of the Leica shop there. It so happens that the Leica shop I visited was located in a district known for film cameras. Brisk trade. Lovely lovely cams on display. And most surprising finishing places manned by people ( some were university grads in Photography ) who could discuss at length ( a few in English ) whatever one wanted to know about film, developing, processing, scanning ( in one shop I saw a row of drum scanners ), framing etc. Films galore; Push and Pull was the talk here.

Try that at your local Boots or Walmart or Walgreens. Film is not dead, the other side of the world. It might be in a coma, on life support, but with a pretty fair chance of
continuing, not a hectic life, but a more slower pace meditative life..in tune with that culture.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I've stopped reading user manuals many years ago. When I get a new camera, I figure out the simple functions that I'm going to use and stick with those. Disaster strikes if I, or somebody else, change a setting by accident, particularly anything related to AF. I've actually missed shots because of this, not once but several times.

The tech thing has gone completely overboard and may be one of the reasons why most people use camera phones only. Camera manufacturers seem to have forgotten the fact that many people during film days didn't even know how to unload and load film. I knew people who took the camera to the shop to have the film changed and the old one developed. And now they are suppost to understand WB, art filters, file sizes etc.? They don't.

Back to my graphic design job: People come to me with photos taken at lowest resolution and lowest jpeg quality. That was the setting the guy in the camera shop recommended since it gave space for a more or less unlimited number of images on an 8GB memory card. Most people don't have a clue about what it means for the image quality. It looks good on the camera LCD and fine on their home computer, so where's the problem? None, apparently, until some of the photos is going to be included in the company anniversary book, some over two pages.

The Canon A95, my first digital camera, which I bought in 2004, probably had all the image quality and all the functionality most people need when used correctly. It also ran on AA batteries that you can buy more or less anywhere. For most people anything after and above that is marketing and great, big words with little or no meaning. But selling that same camera only with sensor upgrades won't generate enough profit. The funny thing is that 20 years ago, that was the reality in the camera industry.

When I shoot sports, I use a trio of Nikon cameras, a D300, a D700 and a D2Xs. I don't see any reason whatsoever to upgrade any of them. The newest is the D700 at 6 years. It will easily last for another 6, possibly 16 years, and that is the way it should be. If there is something wrong with a camera that makes it unusable after 6 or 7 years, it shouldn't have been brought to the market in the first place. The question is if I can find spare parts for those cameras in 16 years. I can for my OM-1.

 

[Shashin]

I would say the article is just invented fact to support a conclusion the author wants. Film cameras were designed with obsolescence just as digital. There are tons of film cameras in the landfill. The very first popular film camera was not built to last. As far as tactile qualities, well, that is just in the eye of the beholder. And all the advance in film technology was just allowing a tsunami of mediocrity--nothing has changed there. And ever time I hear the false argument that there are too many bells and whistles on a camera, I just think someone is simply a technophobe and knows little about photography--not the camera's problem. Ironically, people then complain when manufacturers don't include functions.

I also find it ironic that the author pans the digital rush to "resolving power," when it was not that long ago where the film folks were claiming film had better resolution. I have even heard the claim the Leica cameras had the resolution of medium-format film. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...

Occam's razor is simply not true. Especially if you don't know what it is, as the author demonstrates.

This article is just the grumpy old guy argument of it was always better in my day. Which is just as false as the next piece of technology is going to change photography.

We really need to stop confusing cameras with photography...

 

[fotografz]

I would say the article is just invented fact to support a conclusion the author wants. Film cameras were designed with obsolescence just as digital. There are tons of film cameras in the landfill. The very first popular film camera was not built to last. As far as tactile qualities, well, that is just in the eye of the beholder. And all the advance in film technology was just allowing a tsunami of mediocrity--nothing has changed there. And every time I hear the false argument that there are too many bells and whistles on a camera, I just think someone is simply a technophobe and knows little about photography--not the camera's problem. Ironically, people then complain when manufacturers don't include functions.

I also find it ironic that the author pans the digital rush to "resolving power," when it was not that long ago where the film folks were claiming film had better resolution. I have even heard the claim the Leica cameras had the resolution of medium-format film. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...

Occam's razor is simply not true. Especially if you don't know what it is, as the author demonstrates.

This article is just the grumpy old guy argument of it was always better in my day. Which is just as false as the next piece of technology is going to change photography.

We really need to stop confusing cameras with photography...

This from Mr. Grumpy himself :ROTFL:

Evidently, simplicity escapes you.

IMO, all the bells and whistles just pander to the "got to have more and more and more on my the latest greatest toy laden gadget to take better photos" … which is patiently untrue even according to you.

It has little or nothing to do with being allergic to technology. Personally, I'd never return to film, but did find the film tools more satisfying of an experience and much easier to forget about and get on with shooting. So, yeah, "in the touch of the beholder" but then what isn't in photography? Just because YOU don't "behold it" doesn't me it isn't true for others. There are others on the planet other than you.

It isn't those people who are complaining about the lack of more bells and whistles on what really only needs to be simple tool. It is the techo nerds who DO confuse the camera with photography.

As for the Tsunami of mediocrity … that is directly related to seeing it all played out on the web in the largest outpouring of average the world has ever witnessed.

- Marc

 

[Shashin]

Marc, you probably never worked in the private sector. Making products consumers do not want is not a great road to success. I really don't understand your disgust for choices others want to make.

You are also confusing the existence of a choice with complexity. My digital camera can be as simple as I want--I can make it work like a Holga with 100 ASA daylight film if I choose. You don't actually have to use something because it is there--how many VCRs had flashing 12:00s. There are plenty of people that have thousands of choices every day and yet lead a simple life.

Please don't tell me what I behold or don't. You simply don't know. But I am for an open system rather than one dictated by others. I would rather photographers be unite by our craft, not divided by it. Since neither of us actually know how others want to use a camera, it would be hard to say whether a particular function is irrelevant or not. The difference between you and I, apparently, is that I am aware there are others on this planet and I am happy for them to pursue their photography however they would like.

As far as techno nerds confusing cameras with photography (you might not be allergic to technology, but you are condescending to those that use it), apparently the author of the article is under the same confusion. It does not matter which side of the camera divide you want to be on, the mistake is the same. As far as what excites people about photography, who are you or I to judge? Ansel Adams was a film geek. Bernice Abbot was fascinated by science and technology. Eliot Porter was a scientist. National Geographic and the BBC have certainly benefited from being technology nerds and their photography does not seem to suffer because of it. Other photographers are less interested--Cartier-Bresson and Avadon are prime examples.

Just because the internet makes mediocracy more visible, does not mean it did not exist before. We are talking about a matter of degree, not an actual change in photography or its production. You press the button and we will do the rest.

 

[Godfrey]

For those who haven't read this yet, here is some perspective on what was and what is. Very well written:

Why a Mechanical Film Camera in a Digital Age? | Leicaphilia

I'm not entirely sure whether it's a better waste of one's time reading about how manufacturers design for obsolescence, writing about it, or pondering whether a Leica X1 is more or less obsolete than a Nikon F.

So .. I guess I'll read this article through when I have the time to waste on it. Meanwhile, I'm pretty happy with the film AND digital cameras I've got now, of any age, and most work well enough to enjoy.

But, "why a mechanical film camera in a digital age?" Well, if you like the look in your photos that film produces, you won't get it without a film camera and film. I think there's some simple logical truth in that. ;-)

G

Hmm, I should finish the roll of film in the M4-2 some time, maybe by Halloween...

 

[iiiNelson]

Great and valid points all around. The problem with investing exclusively in a mechanical film camera is it sits on the shelf next to the M8 when film is no longer available.

As for the technological debate I read an article years ago essentially eluding to the difference between the generation born post 1995 and how they are "technologically native" versus those born before who were only "technologically adapted" beings of the digital age. They used 1995 as that's the year the internet became widely distributed and affordable to the masses through AOL and public schools. I can't remember where I read it but it does echo quite a bit with the arguments for/against film or digital.

I agree we often look back on favorable memories for how they made us feel versus how they actually were. I've revisited many things in life that I've once held dear and I can say often the rosy glasses of nostalgia was the cause I held them dear after reacquainting myself with them.

 

[fotografz]

Marc, you probably never worked in the private sector. Making products consumers do not want is not a great road to success. I really don't understand your disgust for choices others want to make.

You are also confusing the existence of a choice with complexity. My digital camera can be as simple as I want--I can make it work like a Holga with 100 ASA daylight film if I choose. You don't actually have to use something because it is there--how many VCRs had flashing 12:00s. There are plenty of people that have thousands of choices every day and yet lead a simple life.

Please don't tell me what I behold or don't. You simply don't know. But I am for an open system rather than one dictated by others. I would rather photographers be unite by our craft, not divided by it. Since neither of us actually know how others want to use a camera, it would be hard to say whether a particular function is irrelevant or not. The difference between you and I, apparently, is that I am aware there are others on this planet and I am happy for them to pursue their photography however they would like.

As far as techno nerds confusing cameras with photography (you might not be allergic to technology, but you are condescending to those that use it), apparently the author of the article is under the same confusion. It does not matter which side of the camera divide you want to be on, the mistake is the same. As far as what excites people about photography, who are you or I to judge? Ansel Adams was a film geek. Bernice Abbot was fascinated by science and technology. Eliot Porter was a scientist. National Geographic and the BBC have certainly benefited from being technology nerds and their photography does not seem to suffer because of it. Other photographers are less interested--Cartier-Bresson and Avadon are prime examples.

Just because the internet makes mediocracy more visible, does not mean it did not exist before. We are talking about a matter of degree, not an actual change in photography or its production. You press the button and we will do the rest.

I'm not confused about anything.

As usual, taking the thread down to the innuendo and personal is useless. It was a friendly personal exchange until you had to support your POV by discounting the linked thread in a mean spirited manner, and other's considered preferences with sly innuendo and polarizing personal digs. Feel free to state your own case as you see fit, and leave me out of it.

The post was about obsolescence and whether one need to ONLY have the complex to select from … not that those who do want it shouldn't have it, or have to use it if they do not want to. It is about having a choice for less and not paying for complex choices and the attendant obsolescence based on the "more is better" principle. Right now, to get a simple, high quality, camera you have to pay more … which is somewhat counter intuitive.

Trotting out your laundry list of iconic photographers and conveniently polarizing them to support your POV is another weak tactic to win some argument which isn't winnable because it is all opinion, not fact based.

Personally, I'm more interested in why someone took a photo … with how they did it as a far distant second point of interest if of interest at all. That is all.

- Marc

 

[Godfrey]

...
I agree we often look back on favorable memories for how they made us feel versus how they actually were. I've revisited many things in life that I've once held dear and I can say often the rosy glasses of nostalgia was the cause I held them dear after reacquainting myself with them.

I recall a documentary made by a*well known Scottish comedian ... Jimmy Connor? or something like that ... when he returned home to his native Glasgow for the first time in 20 years. He walked the streets he lived on as a child, pointed out all the things that were changed, new, almost beyond recognition and reminisced about "the way things were then."

At the end of the show, he turns to the camera, takes a quieting breath, and says (paraphrasing), "You know, with all said and done, modern Glasgow is very different from the Glasgow of my youth. But it isn't that Glasgow I miss as much as I miss my youth."

The same can be said of my beloved film and film cameras. They belong to a time past, a youth that cannot be reclaimed by any means. And that is what I miss the most.

G

 

[docmoore]

I recall a documentary made by a*well known Scottish comedian ... Jimmy Connor? or something like that ... when he returned home to his native Glasgow for the first time in 20 years. He walked the streets he lived on as a child, pointed out all the things that were changed, new, almost beyond recognition and reminisced about "the way things were then."

At the end of the show, he turns to the camera, takes a quieting breath, and says (paraphrasing), "You know, with all said and done, modern Glasgow is very different from the Glasgow of my youth. But it isn't that Glasgow I miss as much as I miss my youth."

The same can be said of my beloved film and film cameras. They belong to a time past, a youth that cannot be reclaimed by any means. And that is what I miss the most.

G

Godfrey...

you beat me to this astute observation...

sex was better at 17....

taste too....

vision ditto....

tactile sense sublime then less so now....

memory and abstract reasoning...who are we kidding....

So a lot of the nostalgia for the past is inherent in the memory pathways that associate it with wonderful experiences...

My first exposure to film was on a three month exchange student visit to South America...on a shoestring budget. Got a Watson bulk loader and tried to load a bunch of film in a wardrobe in Rio de Janeiro on the third floor of a very modest hotel at night....as no darkroom to get the film into and no dark bag knowledge.
Not only did I load the film backwards....but the bottom of the wardrobe fell out as I was attempting to make the insertion.

Then when I returned to the US with countless wonderful irreplaceable photos ... my story I am sticking to it...I dropped the film off at one of those drive through kiosks circa 1971...and the folks destroyed some 3000 pictures. I ended up with a couple hundred useable slides and negatives.

Had a couple of good decades with film then my last few experiences with very good labs were a signal that it was time to migrate...scratches...blobs of matter stuck to the stock...poorly developed negatives.

Dropped the analog is best attitude...hated most digital for a while and have to admit that now it is acceptable...heard that Saldago might even be doing a bit of digital....not that the reality of his experience has any bearing on my existence...in a Cosmo Kramer frame of mind it affirms my narrative.

So...

You nailed it ...

Many of our precious moments are just that ... moments where everything aligned to a wonderful degree.

However I still pine for the F3HP viewfinder...if I could just get a decent refraction.....

Bob