Mechanical / analogue, is it nostalgia or is there more?

[giannis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find the biggest difference - in the shooting experience - when shooting film, is that after every exposure, you keep shooting. No checking screens or anything, because you can't. In theory, you could also not check your screen with digital, in practice you're always tempted to do so though. But with film, it's just a half second click, and off you go, focused in your environment, no interruption. Check most digital photographers, especially non-pros, when shooting: the time they spend reviewing their pictures on the screen is at least as much (usually much more), that the time they spend with the camera raised to their eye.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pippy]

1 hour ago, giannis said:

I find the biggest difference - in the shooting experience - when shooting film, is that after every exposure, you keep shooting. No checking screens or anything, because you can't. In theory, you could also not check your screen with digital, in practice you're always tempted to do so though. But with film, it's just a half second click, and off you go, focused in your environment, no interruption...

...which is why, yet again, I will mention the M-D Typ-262. It provides exactly the experience you describe. I truly can't understand why it wasn't more popular.

If I had loads of time and a fully-equipped darkroom then my M2 would get a lot of use but for folks who, like me, DON'T have such things then the M-D is the perfect return to a 'filmic' shooting experience with the convenience of not having to do all the wet-stuff - fun though it is.

Philip.

EDIT : Just in case there are some here who aren't aware of the M-D here's a pretty accurate introduction;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX3PBhzurEo

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by pippy

[a.noctilux]

I agree with Philip for M-D (typ 262).

Film experience M in using, with direct results.

Such concept is so "anti-popular-using-thinking" that few people buy them.

[ianman]

Leica should make a film camera with a fake screen on the back for people who want a digital experience without the bother of those pesky flashing lights or firmware updates.

[Ko.Fe.]

If final result on photography is considered as the image, then analog /mechanic is something else. Like nostalgia for OP.

For me it was some film look and interest to try all film process. From re-hauling of abandoned mechanical cameras to developing (ECN2, C-41, E6), printing by myself (BW regular and lith).

I decided to try it around 2012 before it was too late. To me it was right decision. By now price on film gone up four times for some film types, darkroom paper went twice in price, at least.  Film M even used cameras current price is above level I'm finding as reasonable. And so is CLA with curtains change. It costs now next to the price I have paid for used, working M4-2 five years ago.

Honestly, with jacked up prices almost on everything related to film, I can't see it as practical media. It is shrunken to buy one roll, use it for weeks, give it for developing and best you could do is to scan, print at home from it. But even this is way to lengthy process to be practical.  

So if you have some time to kill and want to feel good about, buy some film and mechanical camera    

 

As for 262 notes above. Sorry, but it is self delusional. All what needs to be done is to get half-case with monitor mask or as simple as turning auto review off. If you can't hold on chimping, 262 is just bad excuse.

To me it is just more durable digital camera, just because it has no screen as scratching, fragile point and point of failure (M8 screen "stain")

I was talking to one of the few remaining digital M professional users and he is using M10 in full manual mode. Simply because auto exposure is not good with digital M. It has too narrow metering zone. I followed his advice and using my M-E 220 as mechanical no meter camera as well. Results are more consistent and predictable with it. Just as with my M4-2 and S16.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Ko.Fe.

[andrew01]

I think there are two factors involved in the decision to shoot old mechanical film cameras.

One factor is the look of the images. Film does have a unique character which is quite pleasing, even if modern digital images are technically superior with measurable parameters such as pixel-level detail and dynamic range.

The other factor is the pleasure of using a precision mechanical instrument that was engineered to last.  It can be argued that a quartz-timed electronic camera has better reliability and improved precision compared to a purely mechanical design, but somehow these cameras don’t have the same romance as the purely mechanical cameras.  I suppose its the same reason why people (myself included) still buy mechanical watches even if a quartz watch is technically superior for the job it was designed to do.  

For me, the classic mechanical cameras create an emotional bond that inspires me to go out and take pictures.

Edited July 3, 2020 by andrew01

[giannis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, pippy said:

which is why, yet again, I will mention the M-D Typ-262.

I agree with that, but unfortunately it's a niche product with very small market presence. I was talking about the majority of photographers, so not the ones using the M-D.

[pippy]

8 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

....As for 262 notes above. Sorry, but it is self delusional. All what needs to be done is to get half-case with monitor mask or as simple as turning auto review off. If you can't hold on chimping, 262 is just bad excuse...

With all due respect, Ko.Fe. (and I have liked your input everywhere over many years) you clearly do not have any experience here so cannot give an informed reply.

Philip.

[pippy]

3 hours ago, giannis said:

I agree with that, but unfortunately it's a niche product with very small market presence. I was talking about the majority of photographers, so not the ones using the M-D.

But can you appreciate that it does provide pretty much exactly the same shooting experience as using any r/f Leica made since 1932 - and especially those made post-'54 - but with TTL metering built-in? I'm not sure you do.

Nostalgia and Analogue? Completely different argument discussion.

Philip.

Edited July 3, 2020 by pippy

[Ko.Fe.]

I had Canon 5D were screen is just optional and all settings are done via VF. But of course if I don’t have m-d it means nothing here. For some.

[Dennis]

I would not buy a M-D 262 camera. Why? Because it's digital but it has not display. Period. Said that, I perfectly understand and respect who like it, and the reason why. I "can" guess that is like turning a switch. During the shooting, you enjoy and embrace the film approach, thinking only about the scene, and nothing is interfering in the way: buttons, displays, batteries, overheating, CA, etc etc. You are unstoppable. But when you can back home, you fully enjoy the advantage of the digital world and, of consequence, the PP.

It totally makes sense to me.

 

[Guest BlackBarn]

There seems to be a point being made that not having a screen on the back of a camera enables a more thoughtful approach when taking photos. There is also an assumption that ‘non pro’s’ spend more time looking at the screen than they do through the view finder,  implying that the more you look without recourse to a screen the better you become. 

I accept that if you reduce choices then the tendency is to become more proficient with the choices you do have yet I would suggest that having a instant feedback loop - the screen - enables the opportunity to better refine the eye and explore alternative creative choices around the same subject regardless of ability. Having the benefits of a screen and how dependent one becomes on it is another matter but a screen offers the opportunity of a quicker feedback loop to be exploited.

Digital photography is seductive but not at the point of taking the shot. At that point the actual camera is incidental, it’s simply a means  to crystalize a personal view and anything which engages your awareness more fully -  wether using digital, film or hybrid  - should be the only motivator of choice.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2020 by BlackBarn
Better explaination

[105012]

11 hours ago, ianman said:

Leica should make a film camera with a fake screen on the back for people who want a digital experience without the bother of those pesky flashing lights or firmware updates.

Ha ha... although I think the point is to get away from the "digital experience".Surely, the premier digital experience today is the smartphone? At least these use computational photography to dodge around the fact that digital pixel sensor cells are pinned high as soon as a bit of bright light enters the frame. However, here we are firmly into the domain of how the software designer believes the average picture should look (not necessarily a bad thing, but there could be many iterations of the technology to figure that out). 

By the way, look to the M5 (and many others) for a much smarter way to display exposure possibilities (and I am not talking about the spot metering) than the crude LED's in digital Leica cameras.

[david strachan]

I'm not so keen on the LED's in my M6 either. Rather basic I think.

Prefer the moving indicator needle showing shutter speeds as well...such as on my Nikons.

...

[giannis]

4 hours ago, pippy said:

But can you appreciate that it does provide pretty much exactly the same shooting experience as using any r/f Leica made since 1932 - and especially those made post-'54 - but with TTL metering built-in? I'm not sure you do.

Of course I do. It's the same experience. It's a shame it (no rear screen) wasn't offered as an option with most Leica M digital cameras, but instead was pricier ($1000 more expensive iirc) and just done for a single model.

[Mute-on]

On 7/2/2020 at 8:30 PM, alwinvrm said:

I shoot with a Fuji XPro /X100 mostly, but missed my M lenses. So, I began contemplating a digital M and in the proces dug up my M film bodies and began to use them. 

Yesterday, I was as excited as a 4 year old on his birthday, when I brought a film for developing and bought some new chemicals (yes, in The Hague there is still a one day service B&W lab). 

I also noticed that I felt more connected with the 100% mechanical camera. I know by feel when I made an exposure, in which direction to turn the focusing ring, or how to work the exposure. I also noticed that I was aware of the changing light, adjusting exposure as I walked and wishing I had my Gossen with me, making it an even more fluid experience. It gave taking pictures a feeling of intensity and awareness, that I had missed. I also realized that all along, I felt that taking a picture on digital, by lack of better words, was not as real or valuable as an analogue picture.

Now I understand that there is nostalgia, transporting me back to the pre-digital days when I discovered photography and maybe my unacknowledged inability to fully adapt to digital. On the other hand, I have been shooting digital for more than 10 years and I didn't touch analogue. So the intensity of the joy I felt was unexpected and somehow baffles me.

Just sharing my unexpected experience, and probably saying something that others already experienced before me.

 

 

I had precisely the same experience when I picked up my film Ms again nearly 5 years ago.  I started with the M2 and my Sekonic 308.  The rush of excitement and anticipation was palpable, and the first time I had felt it since I put my Ms away in about 2003.  Yes the intensity of the joy was unexpected, and has not abated since.

I enjoyed it so much I put the digital away (Fuji xe-1), and took up film Ms exclusively for overseas travel, even adding a BP M4.  

I don’t have a digital M to compare, but I’ve never had the same feeling with a digital camera.  Maybe is just because it’s a Leica M, but I think it’s also because it doesn’t need a battery to keep it operating. In that sense it’s self sustaining, and an oddly free and relaxing experience as a result. 

[giannis]

3 hours ago, BlackBarn said:

There seems to be a point being made that not having a screen on the back of a camera enables a more thoughtful approach when taking photos. There is also an assumption that ‘non pro’s’ spend more time looking at the screen than they do through the view finder,  implying that the more you look without recourse to a screen the better you become.

If you referring to me, my point was a bit different to how you interpreted it, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I said non-pros spend more time looking at the screen than the viewfinder, because I had some specific categories of pros in mind (like sports photographers for instance) where they *cannot afford* to look at the screen, due to the fast paced action, and the nature of the event, i.e. it can't be reshot if you missed something. Barring those, I'd say *all* digital photographers look as much or more on their screens than into the viewfinder, including pros. Portrait photographers can be especially "guilty" of that for instance.

Also I didn't mean to imply that as you get better you don't check the screen often, or if you don't check the screen you become better. I don't subscribe to the opinion that it makes you more thoughtful of your shots if you don't get instant feedback. I was just describing a fundamentally different experience.

No interruption at all, even for a second to give a quick look at the screen, and especially with rangefinder and non-slr cameras where there's no mirror blackout, makes the whole act of taking a photo very trivial, as if it didn't happen at all. As if you're playing pretend photographer with no film in your camera, just a quiet tsk or thump, and off to the next composition you go. It feels different shooting this way, it won't make your result better or worse. Also when shooting humans, in reportage or street, or even portrait, you can keep uninterrupted eye contact . For instance taking photos over the course of an interview you have with a person. Maintaining that contact instead of breaking it to check your screen, helps maintain the illusion with your subject, that it's a casual chat and not actually them being photographed like an exhibit. Whether it makes for better results it's debatable. But I have to say it's a very comfy and addictive way to shoot, keeping clutter and distractions to a minimum,

3 hours ago, BlackBarn said:

but a screen offers the opportunity of a quicker feedback loop to be exploited.

I agree with that. Especially when starting out or shooting some demanding stuff that has to be shot this way. For instance a multiple strobe setup.

Edited July 4, 2020 by giannis
grammar

[david strachan]

Think never the twains will meet.

Us who grew up with film, for a long time, will always have a spot for still enjoying film.  No matter the differences; quality, convenience or cost. Part of it is the lovely old cameras, and working them.

And the other bit, is developing and printing your own...without other influence.  Truly your own art.

There really is room for everyone.

Edited July 4, 2020 by david strachan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[poli]

Recently I bought an M4. I ran into one at my local camera store. I tried it, my gf was shaking her head... and I bought it. 😀 

My other camera is an M10-d. So no screen. Leica says: digital with analog soul? Something like that. that’s just marketing. 
The main reason for buying the D was not very rational. It was a feeling. These days almost everything has a screen. I am simply getting tired of it. We are screen focused. Especially regarding smartphones. But even fridges ‘need’ a screen. We think the solution for many non existing problems is a screen. For me, my camera is something to enjoy. And I simply enjoy this camera more than the model with screen. Others do enjoy a screen. Or a digital vf. Etc. Each to their own. 
But the M4, although in some respects old fashioned and maybe impractical, so far seems to be even more enjoyable. Apart from no screen. There is no battery. It’s purely mechanical. It feels even nicer. Combined with the restriction of film gives another feeling to the process of taking pictures. 
I do not know if that’s nostalgia. Maybe? But why trying to rationalize these choices? Simply enjoy it if you are lucky enough to own one or any (Leica) camera. Happy shooting! 

Edited July 4, 2020 by poli

[Ko.Fe.]

16 hours ago, Dennis said:

I would not buy a M-D 262 camera. Why? Because it's digital but it has not display. Period. Said that, I perfectly understand and respect who like it, and the reason why. I "can" guess that is like turning a switch. During the shooting, you enjoy and embrace the film approach, thinking only about the scene, and nothing is interfering in the way: buttons, displays, batteries, overheating, CA, etc etc. You are unstoppable. But when you can back home, you fully enjoy the advantage of the digital world and, of consequence, the PP.

It totally makes sense to me.

 

If by the time I have to quit from film and sell all mechanical (Leica M4-2, bunch of LTMs, Nikon F mount and so on) cameras I'll be able to afford M10-D, I would get it. It has nothing to do with mechanical cameras in this thread,  but it is cute camera mimicking my M4-2 and no screen is good for me, because I learned how to not use screen, but change all of the settings I need via VF. My Canon DSLRs have this functionality.  For now I'm thinking of Canon RP which has hiding screen.

M-D and M10-D are film nostalgia electronics only cameras for sure.