Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Here is the main reason that a film M COULD be a better thing than a digital M if enough people would only see things this way. One of your big investments is the camera. With a film M, you buy, what, one two cameras and they last you 20-30 years. There is really no need to change cameras anymore, with things like an M7 and an MP and (what the heck) a Nikon F5 on the market. The only thing you really need to upgrade is the film you load, as emulsions are improved over time -- something which we have all certainly seen happen in the past couple of decades. The improvements in films have made a whole lot of difference in the results many of us have obtained. The improvements in cameras have been far less significant to the experienced photographer. There are shooters in this group (you know who you are) who get world-class results without AF or AE, using 25 year old camera bodies, for example. They do rely on the latest emulsions, though. With a digital M (or any other digital camera), most of us will need to buy new cameras every few years You can bet that those new cameras will need new lenses too-- all part of the manufacturers' scheme. Just like with our @#$%& computers and printers. Personally, built-in hardware obsolescence makes me crazy. It's like the proverbial dog chasing his tail. By contrast, buying & trying new films as they have become available has been a rather pleasant and low-cost part of the adventure that is photography. Emanuel Lowi Montreal ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca