Well, I bought my first digital cameras in the late '90s and, thus far, if this is happening, it has not evidenced itself in any of them. Most of those cameras were sold to friends ... who still have them, and still occasionally use them.
That said, I wouldn't call any digital camera I purchased prior to 2004ish really worth ballyhooing, however, just as I would not consider a point and shoot from 1987 to be a fine quality example of what a film camera might be. Certainly nothing I've owned made since then has shown any sign of such problems, and certainly most of such problems could be repaired if a camera was determined to be worth the effort.
So I wonder about the credibility of such "reports". I will say that materials used in automobiles since the early '00s have a much more restricted lifespan than older automobiles ... the insulation on my '06 Mercedes headlamp wiring is a definite example: It is designed to be biodegradable and, less than twenty years on, I had to replace both headlamp assemblies because the wiring used to make them disintegrated purely from age.
Old mechanical cameras (and other devices) are not immune to age degradation either. Every single Kodak Retina, Voigtländer Vito or Vitessa, Hasselblad 500, etc, I've bought has needed a thorough CLA and often minor repairs due to worn out parts in order to be put back into reliable and consistent service. Same goes for my lovely old 1960s Omega watches and such. Such servicing is not inexpensive, often higher cost than the purchase price of the camera or device...
In the end, I don't care. I love older cameras and watches, cars, and putting them right, making them work the way they were designed to, is a source of great joy and pleasure to me. The value of such a thing cannot be measured purely in terms of money. And at the same time, I love state of the art equipment that works far far far more competently than all those old things, when that is what I am looking for. So I also have a modern car, and modern cameras, and a new-ish watch or two.
We're a long, long way from "what do I like about film captured photographs" at this point.
😉 And I answered that already ... I like the challenge of making this obscenely difficult recording medium with all its defects and problems do what I want. Just like I enjoy the challenge of making the obscenely complicated and limited digital capture recording medium do what I want. It's all much of the same to me.
Whether a beautiful digital print is any less beautiful than a beautiful darkroom, silver gelatin print, as Erik proclaims ... well, MY eyes aren't fine enough to see that difference if the beautiful digital print is actually beautiful, or if the beautiful darkroom print is actually beautiful. And I'm much more interested in what the two prints are saying to me than whether one is more or less beautiful than the other. LOL!
🤣
G
1960s Omega Seamaster De Ville
