plasticman Posted April 11, 2012 Share #41 Posted April 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) If the sound of the shutter is the biggest problem in switching to digital, then I wouldn't hesitate. I have the M8 and I've been using the M9 on loan from a photographer who has two and wanted to sell at least one of them. I still prefer film. That's all there is to it, for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Hi plasticman, Take a look here the liberating force of simplicity. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sblitz Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share #42 Posted April 11, 2012 For me at least, and I freely admit this is emotion more than anything else, it is more than a mechanical click. It is also being free of electronics and looking through a view screen with arrows or red dots or anything to distract me. Only the frame lines and focus patch. My concentration is not on anything but framing the picture. Which is why the 50 is so great on the m4. IMHO Thanks for compliment on my photos. Very much appreciated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted April 19, 2012 Share #43 Posted April 19, 2012 Simplicity is freedom! I like very much the "subway acapella" photo in your gallery. And the other photos as well :-) robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted April 20, 2012 Share #44 Posted April 20, 2012 As for me, I enjoy using a camera like the MP or M4-P. They are the embodiment of elemental simplicity: Shutter speed dial, aperture ring, focus ring, shutter release. No autofocus hunting and wandering, no white balance, no shutter lag, no corrupted memory cards, no battery chargers, no frustration - just seminal photography. The less time spent sitting at a computer, the better. I even enjoy developing film. Of course it is a chore if you try to develop a hundred rolls in two or three days. Not so much if you develop a tank full of four rolls each day. Consistent gradual chipping away at your cache of exposed film is the key to avoiding development fatigue. The more you develop film, the less work it is. Loading film onto the developing reels becomes easier the more you do it. Muscle memory comes into play as it does for a professional golfer or other athlete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted April 21, 2012 Share #45 Posted April 21, 2012 As for me, I enjoy using a camera like the MP or M4-P. They are the embodiment of elemental simplicity: Shutter speed dial, aperture ring, focus ring, shutter release. No autofocus hunting and wandering, no white balance, no shutter lag, no corrupted memory cards, no battery chargers, no frustration - just seminal photography. The less time spent sitting at a computer, the better. I even enjoy developing film. Of course it is a chore if you try to develop a hundred rolls in two or three days. Not so much if you develop a tank full of four rolls each day. Consistent gradual chipping away at your cache of exposed film is the key to avoiding development fatigue. The more you develop film, the less work it is. Loading film onto the developing reels becomes easier the more you do it. Muscle memory comes into play as it does for a professional golfer or other athlete. For you this is true, I accept that. The flip side of the coin is the digital equivalent. Yes, I know this is a 'film' thread but your argument, a valid one I might add, is focused on 'simplicity' rather than film. I feel compelled to say that I agree with your philosophy, but not necessarily your reasons. As a lifelong film photographer I have done my share of all darkroom processes and still maintain a fully operational B&W and colour darkroom. I really enjoy the discipling of film processing etc., but analog does have its downsides to balance the list you have posted 'aimed' at digital. eg. packing and carrying huge quantities of film for travel and maintaining its integrity. Typically I used to carry 100 rolls of 35mm film. Now I carry 10 - 15 SD cards that far exceed the film shooting capacity and all fit in a pocket without a bulge! I don't travel with a computer, which I would also see as a downside. I never saw my film images till I got home. I am disciplined enough to treat my digital images similarly. My experience tells me when I have a pic because I learned that from film. All the factors you listed for not liking digital are easily avoided. Leica digital cameras give virtually the same experience as their film cousins, with only minor differences. (Nothing is perfect!) The sitting at a computer is the only aspect you cannot avoid with digital, but remember, there are aspects of analog/film you cannot avoid either. eg. mixing and disposing of chemistry, hours of standing at one work bench or another, working in the dark on a beautiful sunny day, etc. The reality is, it's all a matter of perception and choice of system, rather than simplicity, because simplicity exists in both camps if that is what you want. Personally, I choose to work with digital for a number of reasons, but I still enjoy my film cameras (too numerous to name ) on a personal basis. Not because they are simpler than the digital, because they are not, if you take into account the total processes involved in both. And you can't escape the totality, unless you 'shop it out'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted April 22, 2012 Share #46 Posted April 22, 2012 So what is the simplest camera? I agree a lot depends on expectations, perceptions...and some basic skills and knowledge. A Kodak Box Brownie was pretty simple. "You press the button, we do the rest." Rudimentary viewfinder, fixed lens, fixed focus, fixed aperture. Take it in for processing, come back with photos, of variable quality. Learn some more -- focusing, aperture, and shutter speed -- and you know pretty much all you need to to create a decent picture. Plus, composition. For decades, this was all you really needed to know, and in many ways still is. Which is why cameras like the Leica (M, screwmount, or flex) remain so simple. But only if you know the basics. Many people didn't want to know about apertures, shutter speeds, or focusing. They just wanted results. So auto exposure, autofocus, and autowind and auto rewind were invented to make photography easier. One of the simplest film cameras, IMO, is the tiny Leica mini 3. Fixed 32 lens (very sharp), autowind and autoexposure, very few buttons. Good results. Then came a slew of new features to solve problems we never knew existed. Don't care about exposures? Use multiple modes for everything from food to starlight to baby. Add video. Add face recognition. Add smile recognition. Add GPS. And a whole lot more besides. Digital can be simple -- so long as you ignore the myriad of modes and functions you don't really need. Set to P, shoot, download. Eliminating the extra processing stage can be seen as simplification. But what do you want to do with your pictures? Not just look at prints or slides, but share them digitally and view them onscreen. Photography now requires a whole lot more skills -- computer skills. Even the tiniest compact or cell phone camera is a highly sophisticated computer. The term "point and shoot" hardly applies. Too often, I feel, cameras and software are loaded with USPs (Unique Selling Points) which, rather than making the process simpler, make it a whole lot more complex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share #47 Posted April 24, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) you are right about simple and that's how got here with digital point and shoot cameras -- is it really such a long way from instamatic to digital in terms of delivering what consumers want?my point is rooted in my inherent satisfaction from using a machine rather than a computer. maybe i will rediscover the portable typewriter tucked away in the attic ..... probably not . . . . my sentiment is really nothing more than the very satisfying feeling of being off the grid. it's all emotion not logic, the cell phone and atm card are still in my pocket. i appreciate all the comments this thread has generated. for me, being free of looking for a battery and seeing nothing in the viewfinder but the view feels like a breath of fresh air. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted May 1, 2012 Share #48 Posted May 1, 2012 Plasticman, Film is Caravaggio. Digital is Norman Rockwell.that was good! Film is Zen, Meterless Camera is Zen, Camera x Film = 2x Zen. the end.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sterlinstarlin Posted May 2, 2012 Share #49 Posted May 2, 2012 Film is film. To say it's Zen is a little over the top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share #50 Posted May 2, 2012 zen is where you find it ...... and if you find it in film, who's to argue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted May 2, 2012 Share #51 Posted May 2, 2012 Zis way......Zat way......... Zen it is probably anywaz! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquinian Posted May 3, 2012 Share #52 Posted May 3, 2012 Maybe I should have qualified this - Colour print Film. You are quite correct of course many colour slide films will easily beat any digital camera !! I have Kodachrome slides I took 50 years ago in perfect condition [ I had a IIIC then] . I wonder how many digital images will be around in 50 years time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted May 3, 2012 Share #53 Posted May 3, 2012 Maybe I should have qualified this - Colour print Film. You are quite correct of course many colour slide films will easily beat any digital camera !! I have Kodachrome slides I took 50 years ago in perfect condition [ I had a IIIC then] . I wonder how many digital images will be around in 50 years time. Ask again in 50 years time? The reality will probably be 'more' than slide, only because of the volume produced. The other factor, often ignored, is the careless storage/handling of both slides and files. Many/most will be/are lost, not because of their nature, but because of poor/bad handling/storage. The real problem, I suggest, is the photographer, not the medium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.