Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
> From: Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
>
> on 6/28/01 2:40 AM, Mxsmanic at mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Kyle Cassidy writes:
> >
> >> though you really must admit, the M has _not_
> >> evolved significantly past the nikon F from
> >> its earliest inception ...
> >
> > Neither has film photography.
>
> of course, that's complete balls if you don't mind me saying so
>
> film emulsions have improved to an astonishing degree
i think perhaps the distinction is that film "does what it did but better"
(though this, too, may be a contoversial statement ! :-)
while cameras are doing most of that they did before, a bunch of new things,
and not everything better.
example #1: f3 made way for f4 and 5. the user no longer has
the option of taking the motor drive off, so has to
carry a larger and heavier camera all the time.
example #2: contax T became T2. rangefinder replaced by AF.
order of magnitude higher shutter lag, and lost shots due to AF
"missing" the subject, less flexible flash system.
there is no question the newer versions do many things that the older
ones did not, but it's also clear that things were lost along the way.
for most people the wins outnumber the losses; as for me, i still have my
F3's and contax T and M6 for that matter.
- -rei