Originally posted by Gerald Monteiro 
Good point of view, but if you live in that times you probably understand better. Is not only nostalgic, is like a good Patek Philippe against a Chinese plastic watch.
---------- Post added 04-21-22 at 07:04 PM ----------
I loved that Pentax camera. I remember when I saw for the first time all black, beautiful like a Rolex watch. I wish I had one in that time. Thanks for your post.
I
think I understand well enough...
I was born in the late 1960s, grew up in the '70s & '80s when, for the most part, decent cameras were still built like tanks and used film. Shortwave radio listening and, eventually, ham radio were early hobbies of mine, and I used mostly older valve-based or valve / solid-state hybrid equipment in heavy-duty, all-metal cabinets (in later years I owned some modern radios, but continued to prefer the older equipment). Over the years, I've owned a few classic cars from the 1960s and loved their relative simplicity and minimal use of plastics. Today, in addition to my digital photography gear, I own and use a number of film cameras from the 1950s - 1990s. I collect vintage (1950s onwards) lenses from the former Soviet Union. So... I understand the nostalgia, and the preference for heavy-duty, well-made, mostly-metal, mechanical / electro-mechanical products rather than modern, complex electronic ones that rely on a lot of synthetic materials... and I
do think there's a real difference in the way digital imaging sensors respond to light versus film. But the process of shooting and processing digital photos
can be just as skilful as shooting and developing film, if you choose manual modes and apply the same principles and techniques.
High-end DSLR / mirrorless cameras and lenses
are still well made, albeit from modern materials such as alloys and plastics (the K-1II and K-3III, for example, are extremely solid and well-finished). They're manufactured to much the same quality standards as most other electronic goods in their price range. It's nothing to do with
digital photography, it's just a simple fact of modern manufacturing techniques and materials that are essential in creating affordable products. Cheaper digital cameras are generally of lower build quality than more expensive models... but that was the case with film, too. There were
plenty of lower quality film cameras - and wristwatches, for that matter - back in "
the good old days". Not everyone shot a Leica, and far fewer wore a Patek Philippe... These were always premium products that most couldn't afford. Nostalgia tends to conveniently forget that...
It's fine to prefer the "look" of film as a medium, the materials and build quality of (some) film gear and its functional simplicity, and the tactile analogue processes and workflow of shooting and developing film. But to dismiss digital as somehow less skilful because of automation that's largely optional in use is to do it - and those who embrace it - a great disservice, IMHO. Digital isn't better or worse than film - it's just
different, and it can require as much knowledge and skill as film. The artistic fundamentals of subject, lighting, composition and story-telling are just the same, as are the technical fundamentals of exposure, depth-of-field and motion...
Post #19 by Cerebum
Similar Threads 
