Leica M series: saw the light of the market since 1954. This legendary M6 is selling for HK$24,000, or US$3,000 or UK$2,400.
Photography was invented 170 years ago or, to be exact, 171 years ago. The development of cameras have taken several quantum leaps in the last century. The advent of digital cameras was one of the big leaps forward.
Some photographers, whose number is dwindling though, have a penchant for film photography. There are good reasons. First, film photography represents a history and a time-honoured value. These photographers may have grown up or been first taught about photography with film cameras. Sticking to a film camera is a nostalgic act to ascertain themselves of the good old days.
Rollei 35 series: first produced in 1966 and production ceased in 1996. What is special about it is that this Rollei 35 is by far the tiniest 35mm mechanical camera in the world. It looks very German.
Some believe, rightly of wrongly, in the texture of images reproduced by films. To them, films boast a higher latitude than digital sensors. They also think that film images are finer in details and colour transitions. The solid reproduction of darkness and brightness, not least the graininess, in film images simply suit their taste better.
« Rolleiflex: first produced in 1929. The most popular model is the Rolleifles 2.8/ 3.5 series. For sure, film photography differs the most from its digital brother in terms of time consumption. Digital images are instant in a sense while film images are "non-linear". That is to say, in essence, film images involve the process of calculating more carefully at the time of shooting, choosing the developer with a good reputation/ the right development procedures if the photographer develops the photos himeself, laying the final images on the table for selection and do bigger prints for the keepers. Film photographers enjoy both the shooting and the printing process. Waiting is a virtue to them.
There are many classic film cameras. Will we have any digital camera that can be called classic in 50 years, and in what sense?
Of course, they are boastful about the wide range of films giving unique characters to the final images. Now looking at our digital cameras, what makes them different from each other? The layout of controls? The count of pixels? The unique functions? Yes, they all make a camera unique. But, at the core of a digital camera – the imaging sensor – is there really a difference big enough for making a preference to this over that camera of the same class?
Leica, Oly, Ricoh and no matter which camera makers are still making use of the historical names of classic film cameras to lure photographers to their yet another new-wine-in-old-bottle digital cameras.
Most of us may be bothered by the performance of high ISO images, or the latitude performance or the bleeding of certain colours given by the digital cameras we're contemplating. But, honestly, the difference is far from being huge. Now that digital cameras become the embodiment of a light box plus a film, the point is actually whether the image sensor can give a unique character to the final images that make the camera an exclusive choice, like what we have in the film era: a responsive camera and a wide range of films with different characters; just that it is combined into one product now.
The answer is largely negative by now. I think this is a direction which the camera makers should think about. If we have such a digital camera, we are nearer to seeing classic digital cameras in our lifetime.
Comments